NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS - Page 163

NYguy · #**3241** Posted **Aug 3, 2019, 2:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Good thing you don't have that difficult choice to make...but no one is living at the tip. The highest residence is several hundred feet below in a "thicker" portion of the building.

I think he's talking about the width. But what most people probably don't realize is that it's so thing because it's so tall. If it were 2 or 3 stories, the take would be different.
But you could take the fattest building in the world, and stretch it high enough that it would also be incredibly thin.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0rsfjQpU-G/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0rbt7tnKYp/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0rgTluh_Kh/

jsbrook · #**3242** Posted **Aug 3, 2019, 12:59 PM**

^ You mean appear super thin? Yes, I guess. But the actual floor plans show the units are spacious and certainly wide enough. https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/1/1792...eet-floorplans I'm sure more than most of us have.

BadHaj · #**3243** Posted **Aug 3, 2019, 5:59 PM**

The fact that this building IS so think is likely why it need so many mechanical floors for dampers. The highest residential floor there is actually lower than the Penthouse at 432 Park despite the claim that it's a taller building. It's basically got a 300' tall hat on top of it. At least 432 Park's height is tangibly enjoyed by its occupants inside. In this one, it's not. Central Park Tower will also offer its higher floor occupants a fairly close elevation to its roof as well.

NYguy · #**3244** Posted **Aug 5, 2019, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

^ You mean appear super thin? Yes, I guess. But the actual floor plans show the units are spacious and certainly wide enough. https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/1/1792...eet-floorplans I'm sure more than most of us have.

Exactly my point. It only appears very thin because of the height.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadHaj

The fact that this building IS so think is likely why it need so many mechanical floors for dampers. The highest residential floor there is actually lower than the Penthouse at 432 Park despite the claim that it's a taller building. It's basically got a 300' tall hat on top of it.

At least 432 Park's height is tangibly enjoyed by its occupants inside. In this one, it's not. Central Park Tower will also offer its higher floor occupants a fairly close elevation to its roof as well.

All nonsense of course. You can look at the image below to see just how much. Obviously 432 would has some higher units.

The King and Queen of Central Park.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0wdzLGBHTa/

manchester united · #**3245** Posted **Aug 5, 2019, 10:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Exactly my point. It only appears very thin because of the height.

All nonsense of course. You can look at the image below to see just how much. Obviously 432 would has some higher units.

The King and Queen of Central Park.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0wdzLGBHTa/

What is that blue tower behind the CPT?

NYguy · #**3246** Posted **Aug 5, 2019, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manchester united

What is that blue tower behind the CPT?

Answered that for you on the previous page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manchester united

What is the name of the strange colored tower to the left of the 432 Park Avenue tower in the third to last and the second to last photo?

Think you're talking about the Marriott...

https://www.cnygroup.com/project5/

chris08876 · #**3247** Posted **Aug 5, 2019, 2:59 PM**

Credit: Michael Young via NYY

QUEENSNYMAN · #**3248** Posted **Aug 5, 2019, 7:05 PM**

In my latest video this beauty is shown from here in Rockaway: BY QUEENSNY121:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdalUpYOQYE

mrnyc · #**3249** Posted **Aug 6, 2019, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadHaj

The fact that this building IS so think is likely why it need so many mechanical floors for dampers. The highest residential floor there is actually lower than the Penthouse at 432 Park despite the claim that it's a taller building. It's basically got a 300' tall hat on top of it. At least 432 Park's height is tangibly enjoyed by its occupants inside. In this one, it's not. Central Park Tower will also offer its higher floor occupants a fairly close elevation to its roof as well.

yeah highest occupied floor is pretty straightforward. the whole crown/spire thing gets muddy. everyone is going to have a differing take on that.

NYguy · #**3250** Posted **Aug 6, 2019, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yeah highest occupied floor is pretty straightforward. the whole crown/spire thing gets muddy. everyone is going to have a differing take on that.

But that's the thing, it's very straightforward. As far as the height goes, buildings are measured to the architectural top. It's the same deal, whether at Steinway, CPT, or One57. Now, it can be said that a tower like One57 will offer better views of the park than 432 Park Avenue. Even 220 CPS is seen as better value to many. So as far as that goes, it isn't simply about the height. More height simply means more units for developers to sell and make money off. Anything above that (architectural decorations) is just icing on a cake no one really deserves.

steveve · #**3251** Posted **Aug 6, 2019, 9:29 PM**

Taken 8/3/2019:

chris08876 · #**3252** Posted **Aug 7, 2019, 1:18 AM**

Instagram video: fly by of 111 W 57th.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B01ajRuA_3C/

photoLith · #**3253** Posted **Aug 7, 2019, 3:09 AM**

Man, I haven't been to NYC since the beginning of 2018. Would so love to go to Midtown and just stare up at these.

pj3000 · #**3254** Posted **Aug 7, 2019, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Exactly my point. It only appears very thin because of the height.

No, it's still pretty thin, regardless of its height.

Let's not try to alter history. When this tower was proposed, it's thinness was touted.

NYguy · #**3255** Posted **Aug 8, 2019, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

No, it's still pretty thin, regardless of its height.

Let's not try to alter history. When this tower was proposed, it's thinness was touted.

Ridiculous. What I said was if you take 2 or 3 stories, it wouldn't be considered thin. Have you checked the townhouses and brownstones in the city? Those homes are huge, and they aren't considered "thin" because they don't stretch up 1,400 ft. Try that for a history lesson.

NYguy · #**3256** Posted **Aug 8, 2019, 1:43 AM**

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

AUGUST 6, 2019

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.