NEW YORK | Tower Fifth | 1,556 FT | 96 FLOORS

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by DCReid

You can sort of surmise that the building is not planned to have a great amount of architectural/visual distinctness from its premise. Based on the thread, it is being planned mostly to give the developer bragging rights as the tallest NYC residential tower. That's why it is a mere 6 feet more than the Norstrom tower. To me, sort of sad to think of some of the egos involved in this new NYC building boom. Just my opinion - don't jump all over me...

Your probally right. But when it comes to skyscrapers, egos are great. Hell, I wish we had more ego's with developers. Maybe CPT could of had that spire.

Skyscrapers wars are always welcomed IMO with developments.

[Skyy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

You can sort of surmise that the building is not planned to have a great amount of architectural/visual distinctness from its premise. Based on the thread, it is being planned mostly to give the developer bragging rights as the tallest NYC residential tower. That's why it is a mere 6 feet more than the Norstrom tower. To me, sort of sad to think of some of the egos involved in this new NYC building boom. Just my opinion - don't jump all over me...

No I would definitely agree of this, interesting though that ego is heavily intertwined with height and not as much design in certain cases like this. Economics aside, if I had to choose as a developer, I would much rather claim the 1300 foot sexy tower than a bland 1500 foot tower

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I still don't understand why we can't just have an amazing design and awesome height, it seems we rarely ever get both.

Originally Posted by Skyy

Economics aside, if I had to choose as a developer, I would much rather claim the 1300 foot sexy tower than a bland 1500 foot tower

You two just don't understand how things work in New York, and the way things work at this current moment can never be changed. The winners decide what gets built, and you're not a winner. If you put any real substantive pressure on developers to make unique, sleek, or futuristic non-boxy buildings (like they do in London or Paris,) then all businesses would flee the city, despite the fact that we have the largest stock market in the world and hundreds of corporate headquarters. Insert other cliches such as "these developers know what they're doing" and "taste in architecture is subjective."

[chris08876]

Its all about meeting demand, and what the clients/market wants along with what is within budget that intertwines in some cases with what the client wants.

Folks have a hard time getting this. Not everything can be beautiful. Towers just don't rise for the sake of being beautiful and aesthetically pleasant. If we are lucky, we will get aesthetic winners, but at the end of the day, some winners, some losers with respect to exquisite architecture.

And at times, the shots are called on what gets built or not excluding outside influence. Its their design, and if agreed upon, its what will rise. Can you imagine folks telling Picasso, "no... don't paint that, it looks like crap". Who are they to tell the artist how he/she should do their work?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

You two just don't understand how things work in New York, and the way things work at this current moment can never be changed. The winners decide what gets built, and you're not a winner. If you put any real substantive pressure on developers to make unique, sleek, or futuristic non-boxy buildings (like they do in London or Paris,) then all businesses will flee the city, despite the fact that we have the largest stock market in the world and hundreds of corporate headquarters. Insert other cliches such as "these developers know what they're doing" and "taste in architecture is subjective."

Ha, it really does seem that way sometimes doesn't it? It's not always true though, buildings like Verre, Steinway, One Vanderbilt are pretty great... just to name a few.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

You two just don't understand how things work in New York, and the way things work at this current moment can never be changed. The winners decide what gets built, and you're not a winner. If you put any real substantive pressure on developers to make unique, sleek, or futuristic non-boxy buildings (like they do in London or Paris,) then all businesses will flee the city, despite the fact that we have the largest stock market in the world and hundreds of corporate headquarters. Insert other cliches such as "these developers know what they're doing" and "taste in architecture is subjective."

I am not sure about that. Despite what you say, let's be glad NYC got Tower Verre (although and unfortunately shortened) and 111 W 57th St. The developers of those two towers allowed their architects to design fabulous residential towers and did not skimp on the design by flattening the top or eliminating the decorative crown just to save a few million.

[Skyy]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

You two just don't understand how things work in New York, and the way things work at this current moment can never be changed. The winners decide what gets built, and you're not a winner. If you put any real substantive pressure on developers to make unique, sleek, or futuristic non-boxy buildings (like they do in London or Paris,) then all businesses will flee the city, despite the fact that we have the largest stock market in the world and hundreds of corporate headquarters. Insert other cliches such as "these developers know what they're doing" and "taste in architecture is subjective."

That's why I said economics aside. I was talking more in the more abstract realm of developers' egos. Any you're right, I'm not a high profile developer in New York, but I could see how focusing on the design could help attract tenants. Hudson Yards for instance arguably has a more interesting design that they can use (and have used) in their branding

[photoLith]

Kill it with fire. It's appalling to say the least. It's like an uglier drunk version of 432. So long sexy NYC skyline. The one time I hope some crazy NIMBY group petitions the city to not get a supertall built and gets their way. Hope they come up with something better than end of the world shadows over Central Park to get this thing shut down.

[Crawford]

I'm utterly befuddled by the archiectural preferenes of others.

110 N. Wacker, a glass box by a no-name architect, is considered iconic architecture, but Hudson Yards, the largest private development in history, with towers by a bevy of starchitects (and Gehry, Calatrava, Stern and Heatherwick announced for Phase 2), isn't. To each their own, I guess.

[chris08876]

I think its best to wait for more details. Demo is occurring for some of the parcels, but maybe we should wait until more details to come out, like the type of materials being used, facade, better/closer up renderings. Still early, and we can't overrule changes at the moment. Even per Macklowe Properties, project information is coming soon... so let's see what that reveals.

Either that or somebody from the media or a tabloid contact this guy/lady:

Joey Arak/ Anna LaPorte
M18
joey@m18pr.com
anna@m18pr.com

Find out more details or send an email.

What we do know is that this project is happening, and based on the permit activity, seems to be priority. One of the main projects when you look at the portfolio. Pops right out.

[jsbrook]

^ While I think Duck is off-base too, there is a lot of fail in your post too, Crawford. Enough that I felt compelled to comment when I don't really have a dog in this fight. You are purposely conflating cheap materials and systems with design choices. And, no, it's not always the 'sole' goal of developers to make money. Sometimes they also want to create an iconic building, and this was a stated goal with Verre, One Vandy, and 111 W. 57th. And, while it's not a primary consideration of most buyers and even less so commercial tenants, better design can also mean more money and better sales and lesser design worse.

Yes, One57 was the first, but it is also the ugly step sister of supertalls, and I feel fairly confident that this plays at least some role in its poorer sales compared to its more attractive siblings.

Sometimes buildings also don't have an inherent poor design (though I think this one does) but become repetitive and derivative because a certain style is overdone. I think we are there with the all glass skyscraper, at least for residential, and hope it is on its last breaths as the dominant architectural style of the city. Some believe it is: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/05/04/bl...kyscrapers/ccc

Can we get back to Tower Fifth now?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

^ While I think Duck is off-base too, there is a lot of fail in your post too, Crawford. Enough that I felt compelled to comment when I don't really have a dog in this fight. You are purposely conflating cheap materials and systems with design choices.

The design choices are very much related to the materials and systems. It's part of the tenant-driven package. The implication was that developers are somehow "cheaping out" on providing what the market demands, which within the context of Park Ave. towers, is is extremely expensive.

Originally Posted by jsbrook

And, no, it's not always the 'sole' goal of developers to make money. Sometimes they also want to create an iconic building, and this was a stated goal with Verre, One Vandy, and 111 W. 57th. And, while it's not a primary consideration of most buyers and even less so commercial tenants, better design can also mean more money and better sales and lesser design worse.

Yes, but this is all within the ego-driven developer-specific context of making as much money as possible. Macklowe and his ilk don't think 432 Park is less iconic than 111 W.57th because it's a box or because skyscraper nerds don't think it's as cool as 111. The GM Building is as iconic as it gets among developers, much moreso than 111, because it's the marble palace that prints money. And it isn't that Michael Stern is more design-inclined than Macklowe, it's that his tastes more closely align with yours (and mine).

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Yes, One57 was the first, but it is also the ugly step sister of supertalls, and I feel fairly confident that this plays at least some role in its poorer sales compared to its more attractive siblings.

One57 had great sales, far beyond expectations. Barnett has made a ton of money there, with something like 70% sold before construction completion. What "more attractive sibling" in recent years had better sales? I don't think even 220 CPS is 70% sold.

Also, One57 is an odd building in the context of this conversation, because it isn't really a box, and actually looks very un-New Yorky and more like the stuff you see in Shanghai/Dubai, with flashy materials and already-dated design.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The design choices are very much related to the materials and systems. It's part of the tenant-driven package. The implication was that developers are somehow "cheaping out" on providing what the market demands, which within the context of Park Ave. towers, is is extremely expensive.

Yes, but this is all within the ego-driven developer-specific context of making as much money as possible. Macklowe and his ilk don't think 432 Park is less iconic than 111 W.57th because it's a box or because skyscraper nerds don't think it's as cool as 111. The GM Building is as iconic as it gets among developers, much moreso than 111, because it's the marble palace that prints money. And it isn't that Michael Stern is more design-inclined than Macklowe, it's that his tastes more closely align with yours (and mine).

One57 had great sales, far beyond expectations. Barnett has made a ton of money there, with something like 70% sold before construction completion. What "more attractive sibling" in recent years had better sales? I don't think even 220 CPS is 70% sold.

Also, One57 is an odd building in the context of this conversation, because it isn't really a box, and actually looks very un-New Yorky and more like the stuff you see in Shanghai/Dubai, with flashy materials and already-dated design.

Your stats on One57 and 220 CPS sales are wrong. I will dig up some links when I have a second.

[chris08876]

220 CPS is one of the most profitable towers in NY's history prior to even being open (still u/c but sales are off the charts). Vornado did very well on that one.

One57 took longer sales wise, but it was just the start, and the optimism of that tower and forecast led to other Extell towers. It had a spike in sales at first, than sell offs, than issues with buyers selling properties, but is still seeing sales in some respects over the last 12 months of existing units that were bought. Remember the niche audience and price.

But on 220 CPS, the king of the kings when it comes to selling.

I'll have to side with Crawford on One57. It was by no means a fluke. Strong sales. We would not have seen CPT if it weren't for One57.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Your stats on One57 and 220 CPS sales are wrong. I will dig up some links when I have a second.

Crawford, the beautiful 220 CPS was 83% sold in October 2018, well before completion. https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...ing-2018/15067

Sales in the (to my eyes ugly) One57 have been slow, and I'm not sure it's sold out even now: https://therealdeal.com/2018/06/28/h...ndo-inventory/ https://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...arter-at-one57 https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/3/1641...condo-for-sale

I remember reading something else that 220 CPS has already sold a higher percentage of its units. If not still the case, which I suspect it is, it was for a time. At least as of June 2018 (many years after completion of construction), One57 still had 30% of its inventory left to sell, and as said above, CPS only had 17% of its units left to sell by October 2018: https://therealdeal.com/2018/06/28/h...ndo-inventory/

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Crawford, the beautiful 220 CPS was 83% sold in October 2018, well before completion. https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...ing-2018/15067

One57 was more than 70% sold a year before completion. And they raised prices a half dozen times. Michael Dell paid over $100 million for a condo long before completion. Also, Barnett paid far less for that site.

I would expect One57 is at least as profitable as 220 (though I agree 220 looks much nicer), given it was conceived at a time when pro-forma sales were lower and Billionaire's Row wasn't even a thing. Barnett had recovered his costs long before he hit 70%.

[Steely Dan]

* posts deleted *


i cleared out all of the chicago vs. new york stupidity.

carry on.

[NYguy]

I think this tower is fine, though like I must have repeated a thousand times, I wish the top had more of a "tallest in New York" vibe going.

I'm not sure why I've seen so many posts about the residential towers though. This isn't and won't be among them. This is an office tower on an irregularly shaped lot that will "float" above it's neighbors. It will also serve as an observation tower, which explains the top.



https://www.adamson-associates.com/project/tower-fifth

AAI Architects, P.C. is the Architect of Record for this new office tower in midtown Manhattan designed by Gensler. Located east of Fifth Avenue between 51st and 52nd Street, the tower will be sited adjacent to St. Patrick’s Cathedral. At ground floor, a glass-enclosed public galleria will span the entire block to frame views of the Cathedral. The tower itself will be wrapped in an innovative, energy-efficient Closed Cavity Façade system to reduce solar heat gain by over 70%.

The 1.3-million-square-foot tower will contain 960,000 square feet of office space as well as shops, a food hall, and an auditorium. At the top of the tower, the city’s highest observatory will offer unprecedented views of Manhattan.

When complete, the 1556-foot-tall scheme will be the second-tallest building in the Western Hemisphere.

[JMKeynes]

Oy vey, Mac Low.

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

* posts deleted *


i cleared out all of the chicago vs. new york stupidity.

carry on.

I didn't even mention Chicago. I can understand deleting my post so as to save Crawford some embarrassment, though.

Originally Posted by NYguy

Is this built on top of an existing building?