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

[Xing Lin]

"better" and "worse" are subjective terms, and I cannot agree with you on that one. The way the Chrysler Building is clad with intricate brickwork from toe to tip is pretty dang amazing, not to mention the one-of-a-kind use of hood ornament gargoyles and hubcaps throughout:

(photo source) https://smarthistory.org/seeing-america-2/chrysler-building-sa/

[HyperPower]

Originally Posted by Xing Lin

"better" and "worse" are subjective terms, and I cannot agree with you on that one. The way the Chrysler Building is clad with intricate brickwork from toe to tip is pretty dang amazing, not to mention the one-of-a-kind use of hood ornament gargoyles and hubcaps throughout

Fantastic, so as we’ve come to the conclusion and as previously mentioned earlier, One Vanderbilt although a nice boxy office addition to the Midtown skyline is in no shape or form equal to the design implementation, ingenuity, artistic approach, history or features of the World Class Chrysler Building. It is tall and tapers at the top and has modern spacious subway entrances. Guess that’s good enough for the casuals.

Keeping the thread on track for 175 Park Ave.. I hope if approved it doesn't overshadow the Chrysler Building as mentioned earlier in this thread. The current design is monstrous in size, maybe this is the one time where the City interfering and cutting down the height may be beneficial to the skyline.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

Fantastic, so as we’ve come to the conclusion and as previously mentioned earlier, One Vanderbilt although a nice boxy office addition to the Midtown skyline is in no shape or form equal to the design implementation, ingenuity, artistic approach, history or features of the World Class Chrysler Building. It is tall and tapers at the top and has modern spacious subway entrances. Guess that’s good enough for the casuals.

Keeping the thread on track for 175 Park Ave.. I hope if approved it doesn't overshadow the Chrysler Building as mentioned earlier in this thread. The current design is monstrous in size, maybe this is the one time where the City interfering and cutting down the height may be beneficial to the skyline.

I'm just gonna have to disagree and leave it at that.
"Guess that’s good enough for the casuals." Ooh, elitism. That'll get you just about nowhere, and immediately discredits all points you've made.
Yes, it's going to overshadow the Chrysler building. They're right across the street from each other, this is one is much taller and wider. And that's not a bad thing.
"maybe this is the one time where the City interfering and cutting down the height may be beneficial to the skyline. " Just, no.

[HyperPower]

Pardon the late Intel on my part but as posted prior on this thread:

'175 Park Avenue has already gained approval from the New York City Council. the 85-story tower has been reduced in height from 1,642 to 1,575 feet.'

'Plans were initially approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the project quickly entered the Uniform Land Use Review (ULURP) process this past May 2021.'

https://newyorkyimby.com/2021/12/175-par...-approval-in-midtown-east-manhattan.html

Looks like this project flew past and received the green light at the current height, just waiting to demolish the Hyatt Grand Central. Financing and a major tenant are next. SOM nailed the design.

[MAC123]

Yeah, unfortunate that the height was cut. Super arbitrary and unnecessary, but if it makes them feel like they've actually accomplished something here (they haven't) then whatever.
I'm certain that they will sell out. While the rest of the city hemorrhaged office tenants, 1 Vandy and modern developments over transit connections sold out and wished they had more space.

[HyperPower]

∆∆∆
So with a major tenant signing outside of the Hyatt, the transit spaces and public areas this tower will probably not be reduced in height again. This is a massive building larger in breadth and height than 1WTC, which was incidentally designed by SOM as well.
With Grand Central next door this is prime office space and will land an anchor quickly.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

∆∆∆
So with a major tenant signing outside of the Hyatt, the transit spaces and public areas this tower will probably not be reduced in height again. This is a massive building larger in breadth and height than 1WTC, which was incidentally designed by SOM as well.
With Grand Central next door this is prime office space and will land an anchor quickly.

Now I'm not saying anything for certain, but unless another useless mandate gets handed down by the city to reduce the height by anarbitrary amount for arbitrary reasons, then this will get built to the current height.
There's no reason for the developers to make the building any shorter, it would only result in money lost for them.

[HyperPower]

Taller doesn't always mean better architecture.. I personally love the design but think it's a bit clunky for the area and overshadows the Chrysler building. But developers think about the bottom line.

I'm gonna rent a corner office just so I can go into the building.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

Let's put it in laymans terms, people all over the World know the ESB & Chrysler Building, can the same be said for One Vanderbilt outside of this forum?

You really can't compare popularity of buildings that are nearly 100 hundred years old to buildings that are just getting completed. Vanderbilt does very well for itself in terms of popularity. 175 Park will be a well known landmark due to it's height and position on the skyline alone, but most people won't get up to the top, even if it is a hotel.

Originally Posted by MAC123

Now I'm not saying anything for certain, but unless another useless mandate gets handed down by the city to reduce the height by anarbitrary amount for arbitrary reasons, then this will get built to the current height.
There's no reason for the developers to make the building any shorter, it would only result in money lost for them.

We really don't know the exact nature of the reduction (the developers themselves have altered hotel plans). Likewise, we don't know for certain that the developers would have finalized the height at the 1,600 ft figure. As plans are becoming finalized, the 1,575 ft version of the tower becomes closer to reality, but I wouldn't be shocked if a foot or two was taken from even that.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

Taller doesn't always mean better architecture.. I personally love the design but think it's a bit clunky for the area and overshadows the Chrysler building. But developers think about the bottom line.

I'm gonna rent a corner office just so I can go into the building.

No, it doesn't always mean that. In this case, yes it does make the look tower better.

[HyperPower]

“Nothing requires the architect’s care more than the due proportions of buildings.” – Vitruvius

It's a fact the current proportions of this building are out of context with it's surroundings. That's not a debate, it's scale using Golden Ratios, geometry and math. Welcome to Architecture's school 101. I'm sure even the guys over at SOM know how out of place this looks in this general area but that's what the developers required and they sign the checks.

[MAC123]

A building being "out of place" is a non argument, a nothing burger. Unless you're talking about something like a megatall in the middle of suburbia Especially in Midtown Manhattan. I wonder if people thought the ESB was "out of place" when it was built?

[HyperPower]

Facts pertaining to proportion and context are enlightened by Mathematics, Geometry and the Golden Ratio. They don’t care about opinions or biases, I don’t care much for them either… I’m sensing that Math isn’t your only problem that needs solving.

Pardon me if I ignore anymore of your entertaining yet amusing comments.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

“Nothing requires the architect’s care more than the due proportions of buildings.” – Vitruvius

It's a fact the current proportions of this building are out of context with it's surroundings. That's not a debate, it's scale using Golden Ratios, geometry and math. Welcome to Architecture's school 101. I'm sure even the guys over at SOM know how out of place this looks in this general area but that's what the developers required and they sign the checks.

What the hell are you talking about? The Chrysler building who's honor that you are seemingly trying to defend was grossly out of scale with its surrounding buildings when it was built, by your argument nyc should have just remained a port city where the tallest structures were church steeples.

[HyperPower]

The fact a building is out of proportion & scale in relation to it’s surroundings is mathematical and geometric. It’s not an opinion or an argument. Architecture and engineering don’t use bias rantings by people who look at a building and like it because it’s tall & shiny.

175 Park Ave will be built and I personally admire it's contextual design, but even the guys working at SOM would tell you this building is out of proportion. Why is that hard to understand? It's not an 'argument', it's a fact. And I never stated not to construct it.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

The fact a building is out of proportion & scale in relation to it’s surroundings is mathematical and geometric. It’s not an opinion or an argument. Architecture and engineering don’t use bias rantings by people who look at a building and like it because it’s tall & shiny.

175 Park Ave will be built and I personally admire it's contextual design, but even the guys working at SOM would tell you this building is out of proportion. Why is that hard to understand? It's not an 'argument', it's a fact. And I never stated not to construct it.

I am sure the architects were glad you were not around when they designed the Empire State Building, original WTC, and Chicago's Willis, Aon and 875 Michigan...Anyway. at least most of us think this building is one of the most well designed buildings in NYC and not just a plain glassy swat box...

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by HyperPower

Facts pertaining to proportion and context are enlightened by Mathematics, Geometry and the Golden Ratio. They don’t care about opinions or biases, I don’t care much for them either… I’m sensing that Math isn’t your only problem that needs solving.

Pardon me if I ignore anymore of your entertaining yet amusing comments.

"Facts pertaining to proportion and context are enlightened by Mathematics, Geometry and the Golden Ratio" Did I say or imply differently? No, I didn't. What I did say was that it didn't matter. A building being "out of scale" means nothing. The ESB was out of scale in 1931. The Chrysler building was out of scale the year before that. The Twins were out of scale in the 70s. "Out of scale" doesn't matter in this city.
"I’m sensing that Math isn’t your only problem that needs solving." Ad Hominem attacks and projection will get you nowhere.

[NewYorkCity76]

Originally Posted by MAC123

"Facts pertaining to proportion and context are enlightened by Mathematics, Geometry and the Golden Ratio" Did I say or imply differently? No, I didn't. What I did say was that it didn't matter. A building being "out of scale" means nothing. The ESB was out of scale in 1931. The Chrysler building was out of scale the year before that. The Twins were out of scale in the 70s. "Out of scale" doesn't matter in this city.
"I’m sensing that Math isn’t your only problem that needs solving." Ad Hominem attacks and projection will get you nowhere.

The same goes for the 57th street supertalls and Hudson Yards being "out of scale". Almost every building can be like that regardless.

Back to 175 Park, this building will be a behemoth at 1,575 ft.

Credits:
Original photos by baronson
Xing Lin for rendering 175 Park

[MAC123]

What is the sqft on this one again? 2 million sqft?

[NewYorkCity76]

Originally Posted by MAC123

What is the sqft on this one again? 2 million sqft?

Yep, it's around there. 2.6 million sqft if I recall.