NEW YORK | 125 Greenwich Street | 912 FT | 70 FLOORS - Page 21

Zapatan · #**401** Posted **Feb 24, 2015, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It is the old design. I don't really see how the confusion comes in. We've been talking about this tower even before Shvo bought the site and changed plans for a taller tower.

In that case I've never been happier to be wrong.

I'm guessing 1356' may not be the final height either, but it'll probably be a supertall then. Hopefully the design is as great as the height

chris08876 · #**402** Posted **Feb 24, 2015, 5:24 AM**

O okay so we can still get the champagne out. Good good.

Some sort of early April Fools joke at SSC I guess. Well, in the end, you made me even happier Zapatan because you toyed with my emotions, and now, they went from low to high.

I was actually bummed out at first, for like 20 minutes.

Even the cat in your avatar was sad.

I deleted the previous permit from SSC. Mods could go ahead and erase that from history.

NYguy · #**403** Posted **Feb 24, 2015, 1:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'm guessing 1356' may not be the final height either, but it'll probably be a supertall then. Hopefully the design is as great as the height

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

O okay so we can still get the champagne out. Good good.

Yeah this building could be under construction before we have any decent renders to know exactly what it will look like. Also, about the filings, those will be changed as well to reflect whatever current plans are. I believe the initial filings for 432 Park were for a 5-story building.

The good news as that things are moving along at the site.

NYguy · #**404** Posted **Feb 25, 2015, 12:44 AM**

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=06

Quote:

02/23/2015

AMENDMENT FILED HEREWITH TO SUPERSEDE APPLICANT OF RECORD RONALD BOYER, LICENSE #085831, OF LANGAN ENG., ENVIRON., SURV. & LA, WITH NEW APPLICANT OF RECORD MARK FISKIN, LICENSE #72550, OF URBAN FOUNDATION/ENGINEERING, LLC. ALSO SUBMITTING REVISED PLANS.

Zapatan · #**405** Posted **Feb 25, 2015, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

O okay so we can still get the champagne out. Good good.

Some sort of early April Fools joke at SSC I guess. Well, in the end, you made me even happier Zapatan because you toyed with my emotions, and now, they went from low to high.

I was actually bummed out at first, for like 20 minutes.

Even the cat in your avatar was sad.

I deleted the previous permit from SSC. Mods could go ahead and erase that from history.

No problem

Glad I could be of service in an odd way

NYguy · #**406** Posted **Mar 11, 2015, 12:43 PM**

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

03/09/2015

INSTALLATION OF 38 LINEAR FEET OF HEAVY DUTY SIDEWALK SHED DURING NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, FILED SEPARATELY.

NYguy · #**407** Posted **Mar 13, 2015, 2:22 PM**

March 12, 2015

This is supposed to be finished in 2 years, similar to 111 W. 57th. Looking at the speed in which 432 Park rose, I believe it.

Excavtion was in full swing yesterday...

Skyguy_7 · #**408** Posted **Mar 14, 2015, 10:20 PM**

A 1,356 foot tower is UC and not a single dancing banana from you guys? #spoiled

Zapatan · #**409** Posted **Mar 14, 2015, 11:08 PM**

Is it a confirmed 1356 though? If it'll take two years then it probably is but I bet that's not the final height. I think the design will make or break this one.

I mean, a 1356 foot box next to the WTC might look a little weird although I'm still happy it's getting built. If it looks interesting and ends up a little taller (or even shorter) than the WTC then I'll be really happy

Onn · #**410** Posted **Mar 14, 2015, 11:28 PM**

I can't believe their building this, in a crazy type way! Keep us updated.

hunser · #**411** Posted **Mar 15, 2015, 3:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

A 1,356 foot tower is UC and not a single dancing banana from you guys? #spoiled

We are too spoiled.

Well, they are still excavating ... but yeah it will be U/C in no time.
And yes, I do believe we will get a 1,300 footer here. As stated, that 841' permit is pretty old.

NYguy · #**412** Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

A 1,356 foot tower is UC and not a single dancing banana from you guys? #spoiled

I think a lack of excitement also comes from not having a design, and the proximity to the WTC site where other supertalls are going up.

But put a crane on site, and I think the excitment picks up, even without a clear design.

Welcome2Boise · #**413** Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 3:20 PM**

While I would like to see a design or render; Wouldn't it be fun to watch a supertall be built without any hints as to the design? I believe the discussion and speculation would be remarkable. I can just see the what the anticipation would be like for first steel, first facade and the crown reveal among other things. As long as it doesn't come out looking like a massing model that is

NYguy · #**414** Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welcome2Boise

While I would like to see a design or render; Wouldn't it be fun to watch a supertall be built without any hints as to the design? I believe the discussion and speculation would be remarkable. I can just see the what the anticipation would be like for first steel, first facade and the crown reveal among other things. As long as it doesn't come out looking like a massing model that is

That would only be fun if the reveal were a great design.

A slowly unveiled horror would be too much, a big letdown.

Zapatan · #**415** Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 12:20 AM**

From the massing model posted on the gate in post #407 it looks to be between 841' and 1356'

Maybe they've compromised at ~1100'?

I could be wrong and don't know if that's even accurate but we'll see

NYguy · #**416** Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

From the massing model posted on the gate in post #407 it looks to be between 841' and 1356'

Maybe they've compromised at ~1100'?

I could be wrong and don't know if that's even accurate but we'll see

I wouldn't try to speculate anything based on that, although it looks 432 Parkish in both form and height.

Zapatan · #**417** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I wouldn't try to speculate anything based on that, although it looks 432 Parkish in both form and height.

True... I have a fear that it's just going to be a box and I really don't understand why architects can't be more creative... I mean really, a 3 year old could design that.

As far as height I also am not convinced it will hit 400 meters. While the ~850 foot figure may have not been accurate or up to date I just have a gut feeling that it is no longer in the 1300's, perhaps for the best.

If the skyscraper Gods really love us it'll top that

NYguy · #**418** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

As far as height I also am not convinced it will hit 400 meters. While the ~850 foot figure may have not been accurate or up to date I just have a gut feeling that it is no longer in the 1300's, perhaps for the best.

If the skyscraper Gods really love us it'll top that

Well, if it does end up shorter, I'll take it as a sign that the skyscraper gods are displeased with you personally....

Zapatan · #**419** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, if it does end up shorter, I'll take it as a sign that the skyscraper gods are displeased with you personally....

Ha, well, that could be a good thing considering that ~1350 is perhaps the worst possible height for this design and location. Being the same height as 4WTC would look better proportionally I think even though it would look best at ~1150 IMO.

Ploppalopp · #**420** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 1:03 AM**

If this building had a nice pointed top kinda like verre, I would be happy with it. I would be pretty annoyed if the best they could do is a box, especially for a tower in such a prominent location.