HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2019, 11:25 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,097
"The tower, which would rise midblock between East 51st and East 52nd streets..." Will there an objection from the planning committees and a reduction in height because it was mid-block? I recall that one of the objections for the height of the Tower Verre was that it was mid-block. When the Tower Verre was going through the city approval process, I wrote the city alderman to support the original 1250 tower and he replied that he did not support it because it was mid-block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2019, 11:26 PM
Barney Greengrass's Avatar
Barney Greengrass Barney Greengrass is offline
West End & Riverside
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: UWS NYC, Dörfli Zürich
Posts: 508
Yes, yes and yes please! And the mass damper as feature is some serious icing. The only other tower I can think of with a tuned mass damper on display is Taipei 101, surely there are others.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:06 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Macklowe is a boss!!!
God bless Macklowe, and shame on his ex-wife for giving him so much grief. She could have ruined this for us all...



Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
"The tower, which would rise midblock between East 51st and East 52nd streets..." Will there an objection from the planning committees and a reduction in height because it was mid-block? I recall that one of the objections for the height of the Tower Verre was that it was mid-block. When the Tower Verre was going through the city approval process, I wrote the city alderman to support the original 1250 tower and he replied that he did not support it because it was mid-block.
That was more nonsense, and Burden's gone. The City's been pushing for more office space, and one of the most vocal opponents against these tall towers already seems in favor of it. I'm not sure what ULURP this needs to go through. There are no height limits there, so if it's just for the transfer of development rights, (and also the cantilver) that's not really a full ULURP approval. There most be some element of the design that falls outside of standard zoning, much like Tower Verre's unique design did. For example, they could need a special permit to overide setback requirements.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloper View Post
Yes, yes and yes please! And the mass damper as feature is some serious icing. The only other tower I can think of with a tuned mass damper on display is Taipei 101, surely there are others.....
Teaching as it thrills. Imagine how insane this would have been if the 666 5th Ave development had gone through...


Back to the cantilver, it's as some of us have speculated...


Quote:
Macklowe has been telling stakeholders that project would cantilever over the landmarked John Pierce residence on East 51st Street

I've highlighted the cantilver area in blue...


















__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.

Last edited by NYguy; Jan 19, 2019 at 1:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:26 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post

Teaching as it thrills. Imagine how insane this would have been if the 666 5th Ave development had gone through...
That would of been nice. That property was recently refinanced, I believe by Brookfield. Renovation could be in store for the existing property, but I'm hoping it'll wait until next cycle, and maybe go the way of 270 Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:40 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
That would of been nice. That property was recently refinanced, I believe by Brookfield. Renovation could be in store for the existing property, but I'm hoping it'll wait until next cycle, and maybe go the way of 270 Park.
For 666, my guess is that Brookfield will do something akin to 425 Park. It will technically be a renovation but they'll take it down to the steel and build a new tower on the bones of the old tower.

666 has low ceilings and weird layouts. A replacement tower is almost certainly coming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:54 AM
Eidolon's Avatar
Eidolon Eidolon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 697


A sign of things to come!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:37 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,021
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/n...raper-nyc.html









The Empire State Building May Soon Have Another Rival on the Skyline

By Charles V. Bagli
Jan. 18, 2019


Quote:
For decades, the New York City skyline was dominated by one building, the 1,250-foot-tall Empire State Building. But 17 “supertall” skyscrapers — defined as over 984 feet in height by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat — have been started or completed since the Great Recession, completely remaking the city’s traditional silhouette.

If the developer Harry B. Macklowe has his way, an 18th will soon join them.
On Friday, Mr. Macklowe submitted a preliminary application to the Department of City Planning outlining his intention to build a new super tower, east of Fifth Avenue between 51st and 52nd streets, overlooking St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

If approved at 1,551 feet tall, his skyscraper, known as Tower Fifth, would rank as the second-tallest building not only in New York, but in the Western Hemisphere.
Quote:
In the heady world of competitive building, Tower Fifth would hover 216 feet above the roofline of One World Trade Center — which would remain the city’s tallest building because a mast brings its official height to 1,776 feet — and reach a scant 12 inches above Central Park Tower, the skyscraper nearing completion on Billionaires’ Row.

“It’s a chance to change the skyline,” Mr. Macklowe said at his office in the General Motors Building (a mere 705 feet tall).

But the proposed tower, likely a swan song for the 81-year-old Mr. Macklowe, would have to clear significant hurdles before reshaping the city.
Quote:
The project could impinge on five landmark buildings — the Look Building, two townhouses, Rockefeller Center and St. Patrick’s Cathedral — so it will require approval by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

And it will need to survive a lengthy and grueling city review. Mr. Macklowe is asking for special permits, zoning changes and approvals to build a tower in East Midtown that is 66 percent bigger than would be allowed under the current zoning.

The tower would be Mr. Macklowe’s second crack at shaping the city’s skyline. Already, his slender, white monolith at 432 Park Avenue is visible from New Jersey, Westchester County, and Long Island as it rises to its full height of 1,397 feet at 57th Street. For the time being, it is the tallest residential tower in the Western Hemisphere.
Quote:
Advances in engineering and technology, new zoning, developer ego and the potential for fantastic profits have propelled new towers ever higher. The only city in the world where the march of supertall towers has moved more swiftly than New York is Dubai, where 29 supertalls have been erected since 2008, according to the Council on Tall Buildings.

Residents and corporate tenants alike will pay a premium for top floors, especially if they provide unobstructed views of a city jewel like Central Park.

“There’s no limit to how much people will pay to get close to heaven,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at New York University.

At Mr. Macklowe’s 432 Park tower, the project’s all-in costs were estimated at about $1.3 billion, while the sale of all the units in the building could reap more than $3 billion, leaving a gross profit of $1.7 billion.
Quote:
Mr. Macklowe believes that Tower Fifth will surpass what he used to regard as his crowning achievement, 432 Park Avenue, a supertall tower completed in 2015, that helped solidify the transformation of New York into a real estate-driven city that, like London or Hong Kong, has become a pricey pied-à-terre for the super wealthy.

Tower Fifth is an even more challenging project.

The proposed building will require billions of dollars to build and includes an expensive and energy-efficient facade rarely seen in the United States, a public concourse, plush tenant amenities — a lap pool, yoga room and multilevel running track — and the city’s tallest observatory, where visitors would be able to dive down a transparent, 60-foot corkscrew slide.

Despite its reputation, New York has always had a schizophrenic attitude toward skyscrapers, inserting height restrictions and setbacks into the zoning code even as buildings climbed in height. But Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration seems to have tossed out the height inhibitions of even pro-development mayors like Michael R. Bloomberg and Edward I. Koch, in part because Mr. de Blasio is willing to trade additional floors for social benefits, such as affordable housing or subway improvements.
Quote:
In the hope of gaining city approval, Mr. Macklowe and his team — Dan Shannon of Moed de Armas & Shannon Architects and Gensler, a second architecture firm — shoehorned their tower onto the site in an attempt to mitigate its impact on the surroundings. They have also held preliminary meetings with the city’s Planning Department, the Landmarks Preservation Commission and with members of the local community board with the hope of quelling potential opposition.

An 85-foot-high glass lobby would stretch from 52nd Street to 51st Street, where the entrance would dramatically frame the side-street doors to St. Patrick’s. Escalators would lead to the lower levels, restaurants, shops and elevators for the observatory.

A glass-walled public auditorium would sit above the lobby and look onto the top of St. Patrick’s.
Quote:
The office tower itself, however, would step back from St. Patrick’s, rising on 52nd Street atop two stems or stilts, near 400 feet above the sidewalks. The 96-story tower is designed as a sleek shaft until it reaches the top, where a two-level slab juts out from the northern and southern sides of the building, before the tower resumes its ascent.

The proposed building would cantilever about 100 feet over the Look Building and 300 feet above an adjoining landmark, the John Peirce house, which will almost certainly spark criticism from preservationists.

Mr. Macklowe will have to cut a pricey deal with the owners of the Look Building and Peirce house for the cantilever and purchase roughly 580,000 square feet of unused development rights to get to the building’s full height. Much of that will probably come from St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
Quote:
Mr. Macklowe boasted that his observatory would be the highest of the six existing or planned observatories in the city.

Daniel Garodnick, a former city councilman who played a key role in the city’s rezoning of East Midtown for taller towers, was taken aback by Mr. Macklowe’s plan.

“This project goes way beyond what is allowed to be built,” Mr. Garodnick said, “and it needs to be carefully scrutinized in a detailed public review.”


Mr. Macklowe was undaunted. He contended that his project “validates the wisdom” of the city’s rezoning.

“Tall buildings are a reality,” he said. “The days of restrictions on buildings are really over. This is a building that’s never been built before, a 21st-century building.”
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 2:13 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,948
Hopefully Chase uses the taller/thinner option. Then Midtown will have three 1500 ft+ towers, and NYC will have the four tallest towers on earth outside of Asia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 2:18 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by prageethSL View Post
Not a big fan of this design . Looks like they are repeating the 432 park design with minor changes .
I don't know about that...


Quote:
The proposed building will require billions of dollars to build and includes an expensive and energy-efficient facade rarely seen in the United States


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Hopefully Chase uses the taller/thinner option. Then Midtown will have three 1500 ft+ towers, and NYC will have the four tallest towers on earth outside of Asia.
The only problem I have with that is neither of the 3 (as far as we know) will have an extra peak (spire, crown, even a large antenna). But I'm still excited, especially as this one would have an observation deck and some sort of outdoor slide. Thrills!
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:13 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
The only problem I have with that is neither of the 3 (as far as we know) will have an extra peak (spire, crown, even a large antenna).
True, which is why Midtown needs a new signature tower. None of these towers are the new ESB; that designation will have to wait.

But it's coming. We'll eventually get a new focal point for Midtown, probably at 2,000 ft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:20 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,988
If we look at the rendering, assuming this tower is at scale with One Vandy, IDK if this is 1 mil-sqft. I think it may be more.

It looks way to bulky compared to 1 Vandy @ 1.6-1.7 mil-sqft.

And it has a higher floor count too. This has to be more than a mil-sqft. Unless the rendering is not to scale because the foot print for this development I don't believe is anywhere near the Vandy footprint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:24 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
If we look at the rendering, assuming this tower is at scale with One Vandy, IDK if this is 1 mil-sqft. I think it may be more.

It looks way to bulky compared to 1 Vandy @ 1.6-1.7 mil-sqft.
But if it has much higher ceilings, and more space between floors, it could be bigger than 1 Vandy while having less leasable square ft. Chrysler Building has like 1.2 million square ft. of leasable space but is tiny compared to these towers, because space was built different back then.

Also, we don't know the size. We've only been told over 1 million sq. ft. And keep in mind there's no space near street level, unlike Vanderbilt. The bulk is basically all above 400 ft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:24 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
True, which is why Midtown needs a new signature tower. None of these towers are the new ESB; that designation will have to wait.

But it's coming. We'll eventually get a new focal point for Midtown, probably at 2,000 ft.
I think that's inevitable. Maybe it will come in the redevelopment of the Penn Station area, who knows. But the skyline is starting to look like an army of supertalls. I still say that if either of the trio of potential 1,500 ft towers had a large spire or spike of some kind, they would definitely be more of a focal point above the other towers.





Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
If we look at the rendering, assuming this tower is at scale with One Vandy, IDK if this is 1 mil-sqft. I think it may be more.

It looks way to bulky compared to 1 Vandy @ 1.6-1.7 mil-sqft.

And it has a higher floor count too. This has to be more than a mil-sqft. Unless the rendering is not to scale because the foot print for this development I don't believe is anywhere near the Vandy footprint.
I don't know if that floor count is an actual floor count, or just what they are going with. It says the office tower really won't begin until about 400 ft, if I'm reading that correctly. It probably has a lot of mechanical space as well.

On another note, I'm wondering why the building stops just a foot higher than CPT. Is Macklowe trolling Barnett somehow? Who knows.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:24 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
True, which is why Midtown needs a new signature tower. None of these towers are the new ESB; that designation will have to wait.

But it's coming. We'll eventually get a new focal point for Midtown, probably at 2,000 ft.
I think its coming in time. NY seems to go the route of plateaus. Its becoming somewhat common for towers over 1398 ft to be proposed or rise. A lot of the super talls built or u/c have around that figure in Midtown. Its a slow accession upwards.

What I'm leading to is we'll probally see something within 1600-1700, than 1700-1800, before see see a solid 600m tower.

I hope I'm wrong, and a developer with guts and an ego goes for the coveted 600m group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
But if it has much higher floorplates, and space between floors, it could be bigger than 1 Vandy while having less leasable square ft. Chrysler Building has like 1.2 million square ft. of leasable space but is tiny compared to these towers, because space was built different back then.

Also, we don't know the size. We've only been told over 1 million sq. ft. And keep in mind there's no space near street level, unlike Vanderbilt. The bulk is basically all above 400 ft.
True. Yeah because I was also thinking that it might be negative if its too big. Just because of the commitments that would be needed for it to make sense. Like if this was 2 mil-sq ft, I would not be as confident given the competition for office tenants versus 1 mil-sqft or close to it. Unless they throw in some other functionalities aka mixed used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:55 AM
Saturnian1 Saturnian1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 7
If JPMorgan ends up proposing their tower's actual design with a roof taller than 1551', do you think this tower will end up taller too? If we got the 1556' massing as the design, it would be nice to have this bumped to 1557'.

I wouldn't be surprised if this tower's design and/or height change (I would assume they won't try to make it shorter if they want to have the tallest roof in the hemisphere, so I would consider 1551' to be the minimum height if approvals go well). The rendering looks very rough, and the cladding isn't detailed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:57 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturnian1 View Post
If JPMorgan ends up proposing their tower's actual design with a roof taller than 1551', do you think this tower will end up taller too? If we got the 1556' massing as the design, it would be nice to have this bumped to 1557'.

I wouldn't be surprised if this tower's design and/or height change (I would assume they won't try to make it shorter if they want to have the tallest roof in the hemisphere, so I would consider 1551' to be the minimum height if approvals go well). The rendering looks very rough, and the cladding isn't detailed.
The figures for JPMorgan's tower don't include a parapet etc.

I also don't know if they're going with the 1560' version (1,400' seems to be what they want)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 4:10 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturnian1 View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if this tower's design and/or height change (I would assume they won't try to make it shorter if they want to have the tallest roof in the hemisphere, so I would consider 1551' to be the minimum height if approvals go well). The rendering looks very rough, and the cladding isn't detailed.
It's very possible that the height could change, as well as some design features. The good news is that they've been very cooperative with potential critics of the design.


Quote:
Mr. Macklowe is asking for special permits, zoning changes and approvals to build a tower in East Midtown that is 66 percent bigger than would be allowed under the current zoning.

...In the hope of gaining city approval, Mr. Macklowe and his team — Dan Shannon of Moed de Armas & Shannon Architects and Gensler, a second architecture firm — shoehorned their tower onto the site in an attempt to mitigate its impact on the surroundings. They have also held preliminary meetings with the city’s Planning Department, the Landmarks Preservation Commission and with members of the local community board with the hope of quelling potential opposition.
Quote:
While the tower's height seems certain to trigger backlash from some development watchdogs, at least one appeared amenable to the design - a potentially encouraging initial sign for a project that must pass through a public review. An executive at the Municipal Art Society, which is based in the Look Building directly next door to the planned skyscraper, said that the construction of such spires were exactly what the 2017 rezoning of East Midtown was meant to spur.

"MAS is not anti-development and not against tall buildings," said Tara Kelly, a vice president at the organization, who said Macklowe plans to give the group a more detailed presentation on the planned tower next week. "At first blush, this tower makes sense."
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 6:41 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,508
Please for the love of god, don't build it with that horrible horrible design. Yikes, no thanks. Would ruin the skyline forever.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 6:53 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,988
I think this will get major scrutiny once it goes through the ULURP. Also, once Gale Brewer gets her claws on this application. Still early though so a lot can happen.

But at that height, any sort of sub-par design will be hard to hide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I think this will get major scrutiny once it goes through the ULURP.
ULURP here isn't really concerned with height, directly, but rather air rights transfers, which are more routine. And it's in a business district, so no NIMBYs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post

But at that height, any sort of sub-par design will be hard to hide.
The architect and developer are first-rate, and so I have confidence. The renderings look good to me. SSP generally hates modernist boxes; people like conservative retro 80's style boxes with "hats" (see similar hate for 432 Park, CPT, etc.). The quality will all be in the glass.

And, yeah, while it will stand out, this probably won't be Midtown's tallest for more than a minute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:48 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.