NEW YORK | 262 Fifth Ave | 860 FT | FLOORS - Page 14

TonyNYC · #**261** Posted **Aug 3, 2022, 8:10 PM**

Walked by the site yesterday.. it's an incredibly narrow lot.. to rise 1000 FT even with that half ass design..

TOTALLY EPIC!!!

TonyNYC · #**262** Posted **Aug 3, 2022, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal

It's in a landmark district- and as of last month have been presented to the LPC for a neighboring tower on the parcel to the left, along with a restoration of this building (not approved yet).

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/lpc/down...fth-Avenue.pdf

WOW.. that reconstruction/rebuild back to original of 251 5th Ave is absolutely Beautiful.. they gotta approve that!

Raysiri · #**263** Posted **Aug 4, 2022, 2:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Rise baby! They really should put out new renderings of the updated design.

I totally agree!

SkyHigher · #**264** Posted **Aug 4, 2022, 7:02 PM**

toilet tower. i hope empire headbutts it

MAC123 · #**265** Posted **Aug 4, 2022, 7:31 PM**

Idk. Depending on how they do lighting, at night this could give off a really cool cyberpunk vibe.

Dunno about daytime though. We just need new renderings

LFGM · #**266** Posted **Aug 10, 2022, 4:57 PM**

Has anyone seen mockups of what the impact will be on views of the ESB? Specifically looking north up 5th Ave? A good friend of mine lives just north of Madison Sq Park on the east side of 5th Ave - with an amazing view of ESB from the balcony. If this building blocks the view, that'll be awful!

NYguy · #**267** Posted **Sep 14, 2022, 2:00 AM**

Crane time...

NYguy · #**268** Posted **Oct 5, 2022, 2:48 PM**

Some minor changes...

https://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/J...ssdocnumber=14

Quote:

09/30/2022

RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO AMEND THE STRUCTURAL SCOPE OF WORK FILED UNDER APPLICA TION #112874906 TO REFLECT DESIGN CHANGES. REVISED PLANS AND AI1 FILED HEREWITH

Also, they may or may not have added a floor...

Quote:

S-570.01: - Removed crown roof framing plan, added 57th floor, bulkhead floor, and bulkhead roof framing plan, added beam schedule, revised notes

S-579.01: - Removed crown roof general arrangement plan, added 57th floor, bulkhead floor, and bulkhead roof general arrangement plan, added beam schedule, revised notes

chris08876 · #**269** Posted **Oct 8, 2022, 4:26 AM**

Credit: bmosborne

NYguy · #**270** Posted **Oct 8, 2022, 2:36 PM**

Getting close to street level.

NYguy · #**271** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 5:40 PM**

Looks like this will be 860 ft.

JMKeynes · #**272** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 6:16 PM**

Since it’s shorter, I wonder if they can eliminate that crazy, aluminum-clad, concrete wall on the east facade.

Zapatan · #**273** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 6:38 PM**

Bummer it's not a supertall anymore but at least it'll still dominate the area.

Busy Bee · #**274** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 7:34 PM**

I don't know about anyone else but I'm totally fine with this one getting a height chop. I think it will be better slightly shorter.

NYguy · #**275** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 7:40 PM**

I’m not sure though, that graphic just looks like they cut it off at 860 ft, and put the top in. That would be weird, but either way, the graphic if the tower is cut.

Busy Bee · #**276** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 7:46 PM**

That little zigzag mark, or "break line", just means continuence when it's unnecessary to fit an entire schematic drawing or needs to fit a certain display dimension.

NYguy · #**277** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 7:51 PM**

More likely, because it would only be about 600 ft in that graphic.

SkyHigher · #**278** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 7:51 PM**

great start keep going!

Zapatan · #**279** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

More likely, because it would only be about 600 ft in that graphic.

I hope it's not that short. 860' is still decent, but yea, maybe it's counting the crane height and the tower is 600 something like the (very cartoonish) diagram in your post.

It barely looks to even have 30 floors there.

Busy Bee · #**280** Posted **Oct 17, 2022, 8:12 PM**

It's not that short. Either that figure shown there is correct and the height has been lowered or that diagram, which seems to be a DOB parking spec plan, is wrong and the original 999' remains unchanged.