NEW YORK | 1710 Broadway | 633 FT | 54 FLOORS - Page 3

chris08876 · #41 Posted **Dec 4, 2015, 3:03 AM**

I wish they gave us a hint on the longest shadow that it would cast. All we would need is that, some trig, and we've got a height. There's probably some study floating around for this project. If they took the time to do renderings and all of the litigation for proposals, there's bound to be one out there with respect to shadows.

NYguy · #42 Posted **Dec 4, 2015, 3:55 AM**

It will probably be something in One57's range, as pointed out, shorter than other towers that nearly border the park. They're whining because they don't get a chance to have any input (more whining) due to these towers being built as they are legally allowed to, no special permits needed. Air rights transers are anything but new. Yet these people are shocked that such assemblages allow for taller buildings. I wish for once, someone in authority would tell these people and the rest of the pandering politicians to move if open space and daylight is the most important thing in their day. This country is so large, there are so many places to be where you aren't "threatened" by the construction of a tall building. Why they choose to live among them, in fear, is beyond me.

NYguy · #43 Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 1:26 AM**

http://nypost.com/2015/12/08/how-a-s...ting-broadway/

By Lois Weiss
December 8, 2015

Quote:

Gary Barnett’s Extell is planning a completely new 60-story tower with nearly 400,000 square feet of space at 1710 Broadway, on the southeast corner of West 54th Street, which will likely include new street-level retail.

Expected to become a mix of condos and hotels, 1710 will join 3,000 to 6,000 area hotel rooms that bring tourists and business executives for some local food, folks and fun.

Zapatan · #44 Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 2:45 AM**

Probably no longer 1000+, hope the design is cool/it's at least 800'

hunser · #45 Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Probably no longer 1000+, hope the design is cool/it's at least 800'

Most likey in that range, yes. A slim tower with 400k sq ft could be ~900'.

chris08876 · #46 Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 12:42 AM**

Its a small lot so yes it could breach the 1000' mark. Factor in mechanical, and a crown (assuming the conceptual renderings change which they most likely will), this could very well be over a 1000 ft.

In terms of what makes a super tall, sure sq-footage and the lot size play a role, but its how the developers use that space. With the right design, it could soar. If they buy the 11 floor red building next door, they could build much taller.

Credit: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...pelled-to-sell

chris08876 · #47 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 1:41 AM**

Barnett, C&K planning 60-story condo-hotel

Quote:

Gary Barnett’s Extell Development closed on the purchase of a 39 percent stake in C&K Properties’ Midtown development site at 1710 Broadway for about $247 million, making way for a 60-story condominium-hotel tower. Extell had agreed to team up with C&K to redevelop the site at West 54th Street, which offers 370,000 buildable square feet, as The Real Deal reported in August. The deal includes air rights divided across a total of six parcels.

Some of the air rights can be transferred to Extell’s 29-story project at 54th Street and Seventh Avenue, thus making the price per buildable square foot unclear.

Plans call for C&K and Extell to construct a 60-story condo-hotel with possible ground-floor retail, the New York Post reported in November. First, the developers would demolish the existing six-story, 83,000-square-foot office building, which is home to Sean Combs’ Bad Boy Entertainment among other tenants. Each of the air rights contracts closed, in addition to the stake in the building itself, sources told TRD. To fund the stake acquisition, Extell will use about $51 million from a 1031 exchange, through which the development giant sold four properties in the Ring portfolio. In a span of under two years, Extell sold a total of 10 Ring buildings for more than $700 million. Extell also secured a senior loan and mezzanine loan totaling $235 million for 1710 Broadway, according to Israeli financial newspaper, which first reported on the price and size of the stake last week. Representatives for Extell and C&K declined to comment. A JLL team led by Yoron Cohen marketed the stake for sale. A Fried Frank team served as C&K’s legal counsel. “He will do a great job there.

The development will further transform the Broadway corridor between Columbus Circle and Times Square,” Cohen told TRD. The corridor is bustling with activity, as Ilan Bracha’s B+B Capital and partners are in contract to buy the Brill Building at 1619 Broadway for $295 million and SL Green Realty is looking to sell the office component of 1745 Broadway for $700 million. C&K picked up the property at 1710 Broadway in 2003 for $23 million, city records show, and bought up air rights in several transactions. Extell is also developing the 1,550-foot Nordstrom Tower at 217 West 57th Street and, in partnership with Megalith Capital Management, a 25-story condo building at 36 West 66th Street.

=======================
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/12/....Sx94cnde.dpuf

NYguy · #48 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 2:19 AM**

I could see this in the 800-900 ft range. A 700 footer wouldn't be bad either, but they could always increase the height. At this point, the design is of most interest.

JSsocal · #49 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 3:35 AM**

When was the last time Extell built anything with an exciting design?

hunser · #50 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 12:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal

When was the last time Extell built anything with an exciting design?

One57?

streetscaper · #51 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 1:39 PM**

I really hope they keep the overall design as I really like it

antinimby · #52 Posted **Dec 18, 2015, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

One57?

I myself like One57 but there are many that are turned off by the pixelated glass so it's not as universally well liked than say a Tower Verre or 111 W 57th.

aquablue · #53 Posted **Dec 20, 2015, 11:10 PM**

That's a nice building they are going to demolish. A shame!

Busy Bee · #54 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 1:10 AM**

Agreed about the current structure. I like it too. It's very Karl Marx Allee, Berlin if that makes any sense. Maybe some architects on here could explain why that's accurate/not accurate.

That being said, I'll be happy to see it go if a 1000' tower goes in t's place.

colemonkee · #55 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 6:36 PM**

Sucks for people staying at the Dream Hotel, but good for the skyline (despite the loss of existing building). My main issue with this one is the supergraphic at the base - this is pretty far removed from Times Square. Not sure that the signage is as appropriate this far north.

chris08876 · #56 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 6:58 PM**

This could be even larger if they acquire the nearby parcel. The really nice red building. While its really nice, I think if this was a stellar design (renderings as far are conceptual, vision like), then I can understand demoing that red gem. But only if the design is worthy of replacing such a nice building in the first place.

Quote:

jsbrook · #57 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Sucks for people staying at the Dream Hotel, but good for the skyline (despite the loss of existing building). My main issue with this one is the supergraphic at the base - this is pretty far removed from Times Square. Not sure that the signage is as appropriate this far north.

I know, right? For fucks sake, this is 54th Street. The Times Square 'neighborhood' technically stretches up to 53rd street. But as a practical matter, you don't see signs like this. Let's not extend Times Square. A time and place for everything.

Busy Bee · #58 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 8:03 PM**

Anyone advocating demolishing 203W54 needs to get their head examined.

What would be really cool is if they could acquire the buildings on the corner of 7th and have a tower that bridges over 203 with about 10 floors of open space above it.

aquablue · #59 Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I know, right? For fucks sake, this is 54th Street. The Times Square 'neighborhood' technically stretches up to 53rd street. But as a practical matter, you don't see signs like this. Let's not extend Times Square. A time and place for everything.

Nothing wrong with neon signs that stretch long distances up and down avenues. For example, Tokyo has streets that have neon up and down for a long distancce, like Ginza and Shinjuku. I see no issue with that in NYC. These are commercial districts for the most part anyway I believe. And besides, the lights do enliven the area at night. As long as more gems are not destroyed for those signs/lights, I'm am OK with it. However, there are plenty of dull modern buildings in NYC that could do with enlivening with lights.

chris08876 · #60 Posted **Dec 31, 2015, 4:16 AM**

The building is empty. The first symptom of a coming demo. Each day brings us closer to another super tall.