http://24.media.tumblr.com/7b9d39038733da6d523635ee85b962d2/tumblr_mhtx88IkEi1s3r80lo1_1280.jpg
http://markcareaga.tumblr.com/post/42476181649/432-park-avenue-new-york-ny-designed-by-rafael


===================================================================================================================


Demolition of some of the small buildings on 57th Street is imminent. Presumably, something will start rising here in 2012.

LIVE CONSTRUCTION CAM: http://www.432parkavenue.com/construction/

Renderings:

As of June 2012
http://i.imgur.com/KRlDO.jpg

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-8-43-45-am.png?w=900


http://www.sgacquisitions.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/432_park_1024.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JHuo5.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/140203164/original.jpg

At Central Park:
http://i.imgur.com/lPosN.png

http://25.media.tumblr.com/5e1364e1c592c93ae2a877ea7c8a1537/tumblr_mhtx88IkEi1s3r80lo3_r1_1280.jpg
http://markcareaga.tumblr.com/post/42476181649/432-park-avenue-new-york-ny-designed-by-rafael

Since this project was first conceived, it switched from very tall condo-hotel to stumpy office, then it stalled.

A condo-hotel is the only thing which would make sense currently.

Here's the initial story:


Drake Hotel on Park Avenue to be converted or redeveloped


20-JAN-06

Eastdil Realty has been retained by Host Marriott to sell the handsome, Swissôtel Drake Hotel at 440 Park Avenue.

The 495-room hotel was built in 1927 and designed by Emery Roth.

Various press reports indicated it may be sold for conversion to condominium apartments and one report by Brandon Keil in the January 17, 2006 edition of The New York Post, quoted a “source familiar with the proceedings” as stating that “The Drake will be demolished for a condo or mixed-use building of close to 70 floors.”

A mid-block addition to the hotel, which is on the northwest corner at 56th Street was erected in the 1960s.

It shares the Park Avenue blockfront with the handsome black office tower with arched windows at 450 Park Avenue. A spokesman at the hotel had “no comment” when asked about the reports and calls by CityRealty.com about the sale to executives at Eastdil Realty were not returned.

Mr. Keil’s article said that the sale also involves air rights from some properties on 57th Street between Madison and Park Avenues.

If the site were to be demolished, it is conceivable that a new tower utilizing air rights might become the tallest building on Park Avenue north of the MetLife Building at 45th Street.

Another very tall mixed-use tower has been designed by Sir Norman Foster for Aby Rosen nearby at 610 Lexington Avenue on the southwest corner at 53rd Street behind the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue.

The Drake has a polished red-granite one-story base beneath two limestone stories. Fauchon is the retail tenant on Park Avenue. The 21-story, beige-brick building and three setbacks and handsome three-story columns supporting large broken pediments on its avenue frontage at the top of its base and attractive façade decorations at its top. It has a large entrance marquee on the side street with sidewalk landscaping and a large lobby. In the early 1960’s, a nightclub and discotheque at the hotel, known as Shepheard’s, handsomely outfitted with Egyptian-style décor, became the city’s first major public disco.

In their brilliant book, “New York 1930, Architecture and Urbanism Between The Two World Wars,” (Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1987), Robert A. M. Stern, Gregory Martin and Thomas Mellins noted that “the apartment hotels of the 1920s fell into three notable categories: those that really did mix transient and resident tenants, and which were usually quite luxurious; those comparable in character to the era’s typical side street apartment houses that catered to a sophisticated and more or less permanent tenantry, usually single people and childless couples, many of whom were actively pursuing business careers; and those aimed at the many young, unmarried white–collar workers who were moving into the city to pursue business and professional careers, and which offered minimal quality of accommodation. In the first category, the Park Lane, the Barclay, and the Drake on Park Avenue and the Dorset and the Lombardy in the west and east fifties were among the most elegant….Emery Roth made a specialty of apartment hotels. The 1927 Drake at 440 Park Avenue…was in the superluxury category, with suites as large as twenty-eight rooms, large enough to constitute what Good Furniture described as ‘a whole self-contained city house.’”

The hotel is not an official city landmark.

Recently hotels in prime locations have begun to be converted, in whole or in part, to condominium apartments. The Stanhope on Fifth Avenue and 81st Street and the Mark on East 77th Street and Madison Avenue, for example, are being fully converted, while the Plaza Hotel on Fifth Avenue at Central Park South and the St. Regis Hotel at 2 West 55th Street are being partially converted.


Copyright © 1994-2006 CITY REALTY

^^ another new possible skyscraper for NY. man, it's getting hard to keep track!

This building will occupy the place of the now demolished Drake Hotel.Some other small,and quite pretty buildings were demolished as well.A big loss if you ask me. :ohno:

http://a.imageshack.us/img828/9149/455880255b76095e7dcb.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img836/4263/4557810941e8f646f92b.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img841/7029/455785620c2d2b76ae0b.jpg

Source:Wired New York (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13337)

:cry::cry::cry::no::ohno: If its not going to architecturally compete with what was previously on this ste then there is absolutely no reason to destroy those buildings

Please tell me that these buildings have not been torn down.

If these buildings must be torn down for this tower to go up, i am fully against it.

If these buildings must be torn down for this tower to go up, i am fully against it.

The Drake Hotel was already demolished 3 years ago.

Never seen it so never missed it. Although I have to say that the Drake hotel looks pretty in those pictures. I consider it a loss too.

What a shame... This has to become one pretty tower to compensate for the loss in historical atmosphere.

Those demolished buildings look very London - btw Phobos, your signature should read - "Europe many countries, many nations.."

The Drake Hotel was already demolished 3 years ago.

Jesus Christ! New York does an incredibly poor job at preservation! Still, i don't want to see those little buildings disappear either. Otherwise, go for a tower there. Doubt it will be better than the drake, but go ahead.

One of the charmes of NYC is the contrast of small buildings besides big ones. In many midtown locations this contrast is allready gone because there are only big building with big starbucks on the groundfloor. The city of NY should try harder to preserve some of those small buildings in areas dominated by big towers to keep important small city businesses alive! Otherwise big parts of midtown will become dull...

It's sad to see these buildings go. On this site could rise either a nearly 300m residential or a 200m office.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/4961810407_f790065ec7_b.jpg
Derek2k3

They could have been so easily incorporated into the new structure....

I am all for new development but new can be nicely blended with the old - then great value and respect are created. One goes both: higher and conceptually deeper.

It is such a shame that these beautiful townhouses were destroyed.

wow, too bad. those were gorgeous!

If it is to destroy these buildings and build something worthless, like a simple tower of 200 meters ... Not worth it ...

why ny government lets to destroy it's historical old town...as from Europe I don't understand that..in Eu.we try to save old town and in usa...it's no big deal to demolish beautiful old buildings...these building just needed alittle renovation and they would look great..

It's a shame. In the US, there is very little respect for history.

What an absolute failure on the part of NY planning department. These facades can easily be incorporated into the new building.

Here's an example of Jameson House by Norman Foster which is currently under construction in my home city of Vancouver.

Render:

http://skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2092NoWhiskeyAtFostersJamesonHouse_pic1.jpg



Under Construction:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/aug152010085.jpg



Early under construction photo showing preservation of facade:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9859/p1050361ky2.jpg

What an absolute failure on the part of NY planning department. These facades can easily be incorporated into the new building.

Here's an example of Jameson House by Norman Foster which is currently under construction in my home city of Vancouver.

Render:

http://skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2092NoWhiskeyAtFostersJamesonHouse_pic1.jpg



Under Construction:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/Hongkongese/aug152010085.jpg



Early under construction photo showing preservation of facade:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9859/p1050361ky2.jpg

what are they going to do with those smaller buildings.,>? :bash:

what are they going to do with those smaller buildings.,>? :bash:

Restaurants and Retail.

What an absolute failure on the part of NY planning department. These facades can easily be incorporated into the new building.

This has also been done in Chicago, most notably with Legacy at Millennium Park.

That's interesting Norman Foster is good at preserving original parts of buildings - Hearst is another good one by Foster which preserves much of the original building.

Who gives a fuck if they demolish that old ugly building? There are plenty of other old buildings in New York that looks way better.

^^ Now, that's a great job..

You have buildings from 20th century or even earlier down, then 21st century architecture up...Meybe, next century they build 22st century architecture up on 21st century architecture...:) Just like layers of rock thru the history..:)

The lil red building is nice I would have saved it to.

^^ Now, that's a great job..

You have buildings from 20th century or even earlier down, then 21st century architecture up...Meybe, next century they build 22st century architecture up on 21st century architecture...:) Just like layers of rock thru the history..:)

That was the main idea developed by the designers for the movie "The Fifth Element". Check it out :)

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/harry-macklowe-to-go-head-to-head-over-eviction-of-subtenant-at-former-drake-site-at-38-east-57th-street

Harry Macklowe to go head-to-head with subtenant over eviction at former Drake site
October 06, 2010

By David Jones


Harry Macklowe and 38 East 57th StreetA state Supreme Court judge ordered developer Harry Macklowe to face off in arbitration against a retail subtenant that filed a $20 million lawsuit to block an eviction at 38 East 57th Street, a parcel at the site of the former Drake Hotel.

The subtenant, luxury watch seller Franck Muller Retail, filed suit Sept. 24, alleging Macklowe and his Los Angeles-based partners, CIM Group, served a bogus eviction notice as a pretext to empty the building and proceed with their controversial hotel and condominium project.
Macklowe bought the former hotel site at Park Avenue and 56th Street for $418 million in 2006, and planned to demolish several buildings to convert the site into a hotel, with retail space and condominiums.

In November 2008, Macklowe paid $5.35 million to buy out the building lease from Sovereign Partners, which leased out the entire building. Franck Muller originally signed the sublease for the ground floor and mezzanine space in 2005, and the sublease is not scheduled to expire until 2018, according to court documents.

Macklowe also faced foreclosure from Deutsche Bank after defaulting on his loans at the site, leading him to eventually sell the lease and the property to a CIM affiliate and bring CIM in as a partner.

"Like Brer Rabbit in the Briar Patch, there is nothing Macklowe and his partner CIM would welcome more than being able to invent a 'default' which would in turn provide pretextual grounds for a wholly consensual 'eviction,' and related wrongful termination of plaintiff's sublease," wrote Alexandra Wald, attorney for Franck Muller.

Wald said the retailer has spent more than $1.25 million to renovate the space since moving in, and made it more attractive for customers.

Wald said the retailer received a letter dated Sept. 17 stating that it had failed to pay more than $462,000 in rent since April 2010. The letter states the amount of the rent owed is based on appraisals by the landlord. The retailer claims that the landlord has conspired with Macklowe and CIM not to pay the rent, according to court records.

"Upon information and belief, either CIM's principals or their business partner Macklowe have caused the landlord, an affiliate of CIM, not to pay the purportedly demanded rent increase on the ground lease to manufacture a sham and consensual default by the landlord," lawyers wrote in the complaint. "CIM and/or Macklowe will then cause the [owner of the ground lease] to seek to terminate the ground lease and landlord's subleases [including plaintiff's lease]."

Attorney Richard Claman, representing CIM and Macklowe, argued that Franck Muller signed a lease for rent that was well below market and knew, or should have known, that the lease agreement called for a substantial increase in the ground lease payments in 2010.

He said that based on two new appraisals by Jerome Haims Realty and Cushman & Wakefield, the fair market rent for the space is $1.4 million per year.

"FMR cannot properly insist that the net lessee remain in business, at a loss for the next eight years, just to protect FMR's below market rent," Claman wrote.

Macklowe declined to comment.

From the 15 Dec. 2010 NY Post:

In other CIM news, sources tell us the LA-based fund that also partnered with Harry Macklowe at the Drake site has reached a confidential settlement with its retail tenant, Franck Muller.

The watchmaker did not want to move out of the tony, East 57th Street townhouse that sits across from the Four Seasons Hotel. But it is circled for demolition as part of the planned Drake redevelopment.

"Assume the tenant will be moving out [after the holidays]," said one source familiar with the terms of the mediation agreement. Lawyers for both sides declined to comment, and a wrap-up court hearing is scheduled for next year.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz18B9FyP3V

I remember all the struggles over the NY Times site. I think this one will play out the same way. :)

The developer owns all of the pieces except for the Turnbull & Asser building, which is located at 42 E 57th St.

Let me just say this - Harry Macklowe is a one big scumbag and a liar. He demolished the Drake hotel in order to build really nothing special glass box. The spot is L shaped and is not convenient for any massive development. And guess what - in the process Macklowe lost all his financing. so Drake hotel empty spot is just sitting there right by the former Bear Sterns bldg. Drake hotel was a very nice and historical building that was sacrificed for another peace of junk that is not even close to being build.

Let me just say this - Harry Macklowe is a one big scumbag and a liar. He demolished the Drake hotel in order to build really nothing special glass box. The spot is L shaped and is not convenient for any massive development. And guess what - in the process Macklowe lost all his financing. so Drake hotel empty spot is just sitting there right by the former Bear Sterns bldg. Drake hotel was a very nice and historical building that was sacrificed for another peace of junk that is not even close to being build.

I agree with you, Mr. Flint. I once had dinner at the restaurant in the Drake ... it was really elegant. The architect of the Drake was Emery Roth, who built some of those fabulous highrise Art Deco apartment buildings on Central Park West. He was a very distinguished architect.

Let me just say this - Harry Macklowe is a one big scumbag and a liar. He demolished the Drake hotel in order to build really nothing special glass box. The spot is L shaped and is not convenient for any massive development. And guess what - in the process Macklowe lost all his financing. so Drake hotel empty spot is just sitting there right by the former Bear Sterns bldg. Drake hotel was a very nice and historical building that was sacrificed for another peace of junk that is not even close to being build.

I share your opinion about Macklowe.

However, I would not be suprised if a very nice, pretty tall tower rises here. The NYC condo and hotel market are quite good and getter much better rapidly. This site originally was to see a roughly 900 foot condo/hotel.

Something clearly is on the horizon -- otherwise they would not be demolishing the townhouses on 57th. (That really sucks, but sadly, their fate is sealed.)

I share your opinion about Macklowe.

However, I would not be suprised if a very nice, pretty tall tower rises here. The NYC condo and hotel market are quite good and getter much better rapidly. This site originally was to see a roughly 900 foot condo/hotel.

Something clearly is on the horizon -- otherwise they would not be demolishing the townhouses on 57th. (That really sucks, but sadly, their fate is sealed.)

From what I saw in preliminary drawings it was a super simple, thin glass box going up. nothing special whatsoever. Besides the plot has as I said before an L shaped footprint both lines are extremely thin. the corner building is a black box of former Bear Sterns which is not going anywhere as far as I know, so top build something there you should build it only with 3 sides open since one side will be against the wall. and it is going to be very very thin. Also I doubt very much that anything special will be in this new building even tall wise. There was a talk that maybe a 600-700ft tower will be there. 900 ft was an original idea that was discarded since Macklowe got himself into a great deal of a financial and legal trouble. I even heard that he was selling this plot altogether.

The initial plan was for an approximately 900 foot hotel/condo. Then, the office market took off and Macklowe changed the plan to a roughly 600 foot, fatter glass box. (You and I may have seen the same rendering which was never released to the general public.)

Macklowe lost this site, but it appears that the new owner has retained him as a developer.

No one will finance a speculative office tower at the moment. Also, this site is not big enough for a large user that needs 1m sf or so. As an office, it would cater to smaller users -- like hedge funds, PE firms, etc.

If a residential/hotel rises (which is likely since that market is very good and getter better), a roughly 900 foot tower would probably rise here. That being said, I would have preferred to keep The Drake and the townhouses.

I agree with you, Mr. Flint. I once had dinner at the restaurant in the Drake ... it was really elegant. The architect of the Drake was Emery Roth, who built some of those fabulous highrise Art Deco apartment buildings on Central Park West. He was a very distinguished architect.

Absolutely and also once again and again and again - the plot is so inconvenient for anything that I just can't imagine anything worthy of all the trouble of getting perfectly nice old hotel just to prove the point.

I would not be so mad if lets say you take an old hotel out and build a new one which is worthy or better in architectural form, or lets say is very very tall (1000ft+) or otherwise worthy of our attention. instead you've got these greedy developers who demolish something very nice and at best offer some really mediocre crap that belongs in Newark or Morristown at most, but not in NYC. and in quite a few cases they get busted in the process so they default on the promise and instead speculate the land which is more expensive than the building.

Or for example in case of 3 Columbus circle they took a nice old Gotham style building and stupidly cover it with glass trying to make it more contemporary and in the process the developer get himself bankrupted and the building was under the threat of total demolition since it is not finished.

I am simply tired of these scumbag developers. Period! Where is the pride and style of this city? Where are the balls that all these industrialists used to have when they build bold masterpieces to make sure that we notice their industrial might? Is it the best we can do nowadays - barely 300 meters (if you lucky) simple glass box? :gaah:

BTW - Do you know that Roosevelt hotel was also considered for demolition? another stupid idea to bring another glass box instead of old masterpiece.

The initial plan was for an approximately 900 foot hotel/condo. Then, the office market took off and Macklowe changed the plan to a roughly 600 foot, fatter glass box. (You and I may have seen the same rendering which was never released to the general public.)

Macklowe lost this site, but it appears that the new owner has retained him as a developer.

No one will finance a speculative office tower at the moment. Also, this site is not big enough for a large user that needs 1m sf or so. As an office, it would cater to smaller users -- like hedge funds, PE firms, etc.

If a residential/hotel rises (which is likely since that market is very good and getter better), a roughly 900 foot tower would probably rise here. That being said, I would have preferred to keep The Drake and the townhouses.

So basically we are getting crap instead of something really nice? Am I wrong? :ohno:

I don't think so. Since a residential building with a very high-end hotel makes the most sense right now, I envision a tall thin tower sitting upon a retail podium. (If Related fails with its attempts to foreclose 3 Columbus, this site might once again emerge as the new Nordstrom site.)

I don't think so. Since a residential building with a very high-end hotel makes the most sense right now, I envision a tall thin tower sitting upon a retail podium. (If Related fails with its attempts to foreclose 3 Columbus, this site might once again emerge as the new Nordstrom site.)

first they will demolish 3 Columbus before new Nordstrom, which is incredibly unfair

That's another story. I hope that they succeed with the foreclosure of 3 Columbus.

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/cim-group-adds-to-drake-site-assemblage-with-purchase-of-townhouse-at-46-east-57th-street-for-42-5-million

CIM Group buys townhouse at Drake site
January 05, 2011 11:50AM

By Adam Pincus

Harry Macklowe and 46 East 57th StreetCalifornia private equity firm CIM Group, which paid off lenders to take control of Harry Macklowe's former Drake Hotel site at Park Avenue and 56th Street for $305 million, has acquired an additional property adjacent to the assemblage.

The CIM Group paid $42.5 million for the 18-foot wide townhouse at 46 East 57th Street, city records filed yesterday show. The California company picked up the five-story, 57th Street property through six separate deeds, with values between $417,057 and $14.2 million, city records show.

The five-story building would modestly widen the frontage Macklowe put together on 57th Street, if it is added to the site.

An outside spokesperson for CIM Group declined to comment, other than to confirm the sale price.

Woody Heller, an executive managing director with commercial firm Studley, advised CIM Group on the sale. He declined to comment on the transaction.

Macklowe bought the Drake Hotel at 434 Park Avenue in 2006 for $418 million and the next year tore it down with plans to rebuild a hotel, residential and commercial development. He acquired four of the seven properties along 57th Street in order to give the site frontage on the high-profile street.

But Macklowe defaulted on the project's loans, and Deutsche Bank representing a group of lenders filed to foreclose in August 2008. CIM Group took over the site in January 2010, but real estate insiders say Macklowe is still involved in the project today.

According to property records and foreclosure filings, by 2008 Macklowe controlled 38, 40, 44 and 50 East 57th Street, but not 42, 46 and 48 East 57th Street.

This new addition widens access on the street, but property records indicate CIM Group still does not control 42 and 48 East 57th Street, preventing a new development from building a cohesive street wall on the block.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/turnbull_townhouse_tussle_udKWzLIs0xG05Og396hJSN/1


February 22, 2011

Steve Cuozzo

REALTY CHECK
That means Turnbull might soon be hemmed in by demolition on both sides, a classic card in a developer's hand to intimidate a holdout.

Meanwhile, Jacob & Co., the high-end watchmaker at 48 E. 57th St., is also refusing to leave. Like Turnbull, Jacob owns its building and confirmed through a rep it's staying put.

Even if Turnbull moves to 50 E. 57th St., keeping that building up along with Jacob's next door would leave CIM and Macklowe with much less sidewalk frontage than they hoped for -- 101 feet rather than 150 feet, according to a zoning lot declaration filed with the city.


James Messerschmidt
SQUEEZE PLAY: Turnbull & Asser (center right, without netting) is snared in a demolition squeeze, as CIM Group works on the Drake Hotel site on East 57th Street.
Of course, if Turnbull -- in the middle of the new building's hoped-for 57th Street façade -- doesn't move, it's a bigger problem. But these things have a way of eventually getting worked out, don't they?

*

In welcome news for Brookfield's World Financial Center, Oppenheimer Funds has made a long-term commitment to remaining at 2 WFC, where it just signed a new, 235,000 square-foot lease directly with the landlord. The 15-year lease with Brookfield will begin when its sublease from Merrill Lynch expires in 2013.

The deal typifies a trend of large tenants either renewing leases years before their expiration or, as in this case, converting a sublease to a more stable direct one equally early on -- reflecting the belief that rents are bound to rise in the years ahead.

Oppenheimer Funds -- not to be confused with Oppenheimer & Co., which is based at 125 Broad St. and negotiating a possible move to 85 Broad St. -- was represented by a Cushman & Wakefield team of Stuart Romanoff, Amy Fox and Robert Constable. Brookfield was repped in-house by Jerry Larkin and Duncan McCuaig.

Oppenheimer Funds had once been at the WFC, but moved temporarily to Midtown after 9/11 and returned a few years later. Romanoff said the decision to stay at 2 WFC was by no means preordained.

"We did go through an exhaustive search," he said. "We looked at the market care fully and Oppen heimer Funds decided it en joyed its occu pancy at 2 WFC.

"They like Brookfield and they're excited about planned improvements at the WFC."

Neither Romanoff nor anyone else involved would discuss the rent or asking rent. Brokers not involved with the deal suggested that WFC asking rents have risen from the mid-$40s a few years ago into the $60s, but no one was willing to guess about the Oppenheimer deal.

Whatever the price, the lease will further stabilize the WFC, which faces possible moves-out by Merrill Lynch and Nomura a few years from now.

We recently reported that FINRA is negotiating to move into 204,000 square-feet at 1 WFC via a sublease from Dow Jones, part of News Corp., which also owns The Post. scuozzo@nypost.com



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/turnbull_townhouse_tussle_udKWzLIs0xG05Og396hJSN#ixzz1Eh86POTA

That is ...? Demolished the Drake Hotel, and most of these small works for NOTHING.
They did all this, to leave an empty hole in the middle of town, and eventually will build up a mess that pleases no one. :bleep:

Let's wait and see how it will finish this story. I hope it ends in a positive way.

I'm disappointed.

By the way, I have a friend who works for CIM who stated that this tower will exceed 1,000 feet.

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-estate/stirrings-two-haunted-assets#

Stirrings at Two Haunted Assets

By Laura Kusisto

April 6, 2011 | 4:04 p.m

Life is stirring again at the ghostly Drake Hotel site.With financing for development sites still virtually frozen, CIM Group has received a $30 million mortgage from Pacific Northwestern Bank on the former home of the Gilded Age hotel, according to public records.

As The Observer reported in February, the spot at Park Avenue and 57th Street is likely the only existing development site with a prime midtown location. The Wall Street Journal once dubbed it "the world's most valuable rubble-strewn lot."

The battle for control of the retail, office or hotel site has been long and complex. Here are the Cliff Notes: Harry and Billy Macklowe bought the hotel for $418 million, plus $543 million in loans, in 2006, and subsequently demolished it over preservationists' cries. But like so many of their prized assets, it was ultimately doomed, and the Macklowes defaulted on the development loan in 2008.

California-based private-equity firm CIM was poised to swoop in and help Billy Macklowe save the site from lenders this January, according to The Journal. Instead, CIM bought the building from Mr. Macklowe's newly formed, eponymous firm for $305.4 million in the same month, according to public records. A William Macklowe Company spokesman confirmed the firm has no involvement any longer.

Sources said CIM still plans to build on the cluster of properties at 434 Park Avenue, as well as 38, 40, 44 and 50 East 57th Street. The company did not respond to requests for comment.

A quiet, but increasingly powerful player on the Manhattan development scene, CIM has also helped pay off loans held by iStar on the Beaver House site at 15 William Street.

Well, hopefully his statement is true.

I agree, but it makes sense. This parcel has a lot of square feet for a residential tower, and it's in a developer's interest to maximize views in a tower like this.

This, Torre Verre, Carnegie 57 and 225 West 57th will add for 300m+ towers to 56th-57th Streets over the next few years.

This area is just booming. It will be great to watch all these supertalls rise in the coming years. :)

So, we are speaking abt FOUR supertalls, only on this tiny stretch of midtown? WOW Add 15 Penn, the Girasole, the 4 existing supertalls and the three WTC supertalls, and NYC will have 13 supertalls in a few years. IF not more.

So, we are speaking abt FOUR supertalls, only on this tiny stretch of midtown? WOW Add 15 Penn, the Girasole, the 4 existing supertalls and the three WTC supertalls, and NYC will have 13 supertalls in a few years. IF not more.

Also:

1. BRookfield's 2 9th AVE supertalls,
2. the 300m hotel planned for across the street from Javits
3. SHerwood's 10th Ave site; and many other sites in the Yards that have air rights for 300m+ towers.

Demo permit for 44:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Pr...84&requestid=1

that's good news, thank you robert for keeping us informed. i was (and still am) pretty busy lately, so i rely on you to keep us up to date. ;)

My pleasure, sir.

This probably will be moved to the supertall section, as it's supposed to exceed 300m.

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-es...velopment-site
Stirrings at North America's Most Valuable Development Site



By Laura Kusisto
April 15, 2011


Developers are moving forward with super-secretive plans to begin construction on the most valuable development site in North America.

A team led by the California-based CIM Group has filed an application with the Department of Buildings to begin construction on the site, at Park Avenue and 57th Street where the Drake Hotel once was, according to public records. Associates of Harry Macklowe, which purchased the site for $418 million in 2006, are listed on the application.

The plans submitted to the city call for a mere five-story office tower, but that is a common tactic to get the development moving before plans are finalized or financing is secured.

Industry insiders told The Observer that a 70-story residential tower is planned, with three stories of luxury retail on the bottom. Nordstrom's, which was previously slated to take the retail space, is reportedly still considering it.

The Drake Hotel site has been fallow ever since Mr. Macklowe demolished the Gilded Age reminder. Deutsche Bank sued Mr. Macklowe over an unpaid $30 million debt on the site in August 2008. Los Angeles-based CIM purchased the site from Deutsche Bank for $305.4 million in January. They have also been quietly assembling several townhouses around the site, in preparation for development. Mr. Macklowe is still said to be involved in the planning, with little or no financial stake, according to people familiar with the deal, but not directly involved.

"It is inarguably the best development site in North America," Eric Anton of Eastern Consolidated told The Observer this week (he is not involved in the development plans). But, he added: "They need to get going. Time kills all deals."

A CIM spokesman declined yesterday to comment, saying the company does not engage in market speculation. Multiple voicemails to Harry Macklowe and his associates were not returned over the last week. Earlier, CIM secured a $30 million mortgage for the site, The Observer reported.

From what we've read in recent news published, this design has everything to be great. I would love to see a supertall with 320 meters high in this place. But I'd be satisfied with a 300m -footer.

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-estate/more-stirrings-drake-development-site

300m+ of high-end skyscraper coming soon!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/drake_site_demolition_ok_LpZwwWMHPHAgCHnvh4gvgO


Drake site demolition OK'd
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/04/19/news/photos_stories/realty_check--300x300.jpg

Posted: 12:02 AM, April 19, 2011

Steve Cuozzo

REALTY CHECK

The owners of the bar ren Drake Hotel site have just gotten Buildings Dept. approval to demolish 44 E. 57th St., one of several retail townhouses that stand in the way of a proposed 70-story project they're straining to start. But don't expect it to shoot out of the ground overnight.

Despite the new demo permit and a recent filing for underground work, site owner CIM Group and its development "adviser," Harry Macklowe, seem to have a long way to go before above-ground construction can begin.

Sources say CIM, while downplaying Macklowe's role, is simultaneously tapping his skill as a bare-knuckles negotiator to try ousting pesky holdouts at the site.


SLOW PROGRESS: CIM Group, owner of the Drake Hotel site, has talked to several ultra-high-end hotel operators, but no deal has materialized.
Meanwhile, we're told CIM has talked to several ultra-high-end hotel operators to anchor the tower -- but no deal appears imminent.

At least more demolition is the cards on top of the razing of the Drake, which has left an empty lot at Park Avenue at 56th Street and doomed several handsome retail townhouses on East 57th.

The precious assemblage currently consists of the L-shaped former Drake land at 440 Park Ave. at 56th Street, which wraps around the office tower at 450 Park Ave., and five townhouses on East 57th.

CIM took over the properties last year, following a tussle that resulted after Macklowe, who bought the Drake in 2006 for $410 million, defaulted on a construction loan. It is unclear whether Macklowe's "advisory" role includes equity in the project.

CIM now owns Nos. 38, 40, 44, 46 and 50 E. 57th St. -- but it also covets No. 42, owned by Turnbull & Asser, and No. 48, owned by Jacob & Co. It also wants Buccellati to give up its lease at No. 46.

Gaining control of 42, 46 and 48 would permit construction of a 57th Street façade with 150 feet of precious sidewalk frontage, compared to about the 70 feet it can build using 38 and 40 alone -- or 101 feet with only 38, 40 and 42.

CIM is now ready to demolish vacant No. 44, immediately east of Turnbull. It will happen even as No. 40 to Turnbull's west continues to be dismantled under a permit we first reported two months ago. Demolishing the buildings on either side of Turnbull is a strong inducement for the menswear emporium to swap No. 42 for vacant No. 50 four doors east.

Meanwhile, sources said Los Angeles-based CIM has tried to lure Mandarin Oriental, Taj, and One&Only Resorts to operate a high-end inn on the lower floors, with luxury condo apartments to rise above them.

A bid to lure department store Nordstrom to the site several years ago is "ancient history," an insider said.

CIM declined to comment. A source close to the company insisted the project is entirely CIM's, that Macklowe is merely "an adviser," and that CIM is "very happy with the assemblage it now has."

However, we've learned that Macklowe has been in the thick of prolonged, heated negotiations with Jacob & Co. and Buccellati over possible buyouts.

Although Jacob says it has no intention of selling, an insider termed that "a negotiation tactic." The source said both jewelers nixed what they regarded as "peanuts" buyout offers.

A different source said Macklowe rejected their "demands" a few weeks ago in colorful, unprintable language.

Insiders said CIM and Macklowe have now told the retailers they will "build around" them. Such posturing on both sides is common in holdout battles, but it was unclear whether either side was willing to budge.

Turnbull is a different kind of holdout than Jacob or Buccellati. It's long been in talks with CIM to give up its building in exchange for 50 E. 57th only a few doors east of its current home.

Although nothing's firm, an agreement for Turnbull to move appears on track. CIM has filed with the city to "renovate" the interior of 50 E. 57th St.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/drake_site_demolition_ok_LpZwwWMHPHAgCHnvh4gvgO#ixzz1JxueWhE0

NY resembles HK in the early 00's on so many levels where we had an enormous skyscraper / supertall boom. exciting times! :)

NY, London and HK have some commonalities as the world's top three financial capitals.

^^ HK and NY should create a special partnership! :hug:

on topic: as i see it many stale proposals are back on track (still waiting for 99 church street to take off! :D), as the economy recovers.

I agree.

With respect to projects moving forward, I predict that Torre Verre will be the next one!

NY, London and HK have some commonalities as the world's top three financial capitals.

All 3 cities have some real good skyscrapers going up or built already, but Shanghai will dwarf them all in 20 years or so....

All 3 cities have some real good skyscrapers going up or built already, but Shanghai will dwarf them all in 20 years or so....

i would no be so sure about that shanghai has huge problems and u should not forget that hk is still and will ever be the financial place of china -.

PREPARE TO BE DAZZLED!!!

PREPARE TO BE DAZZLED!!!

do you know something (about the design) we don't? :D if you do, please share with us!

I trust he knows something we don't. Otherwise, he must be off his rocker to foster such high expectations.

All I can say is that I have a friend at CIM, which owns the site, and I know that everyone will be AMAZED!!!!:cheers::cheers::cheers:

I can hardly wait. ;)

http://ny.curbed.com/tags/440-park-avenue

Torre Verre, which likely will start before the end of 2011, will have some competition!

i'll be waiting! :D

I can hardly wait. ;)

http://ny.curbed.com/tags/440-park-avenue

nice find, this sound serious:

[...] but the Drake site is still, as one expert puts it, "inarguably the best development site in the country and possibly the world,” [...]

That's a pretty old link from when the former developer, Macklowe, sought to build an office tower.

Torre Verre, which likely will start before the end of 2011, will have some competition!

what are u meaning? im so eager to see tower verre rise :banana:

- so this tower will be awesome too? ?

what are u meaning? im so eager to see tower verre rise :banana:

- so this tower will be awesome too? ?

Yes!

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-es...ake-hotel-site

Holy Viñoly! Macklowe Hires Architect for Drake Hotel Site

By Laura Kusisto
May 2, 2011


Quote:
A few weeks ago, The Observer took a stroll around the Drake Hotel site and noticed an orange crane poised in the northwest corner. That was just the first in a series of signs that the developers are moving ahead on one of North America's most valuable development sites.

Insiders told The Observer a few weeks ago that Mr. Macklowe and his money-partner, the CIM Group, planned a 70-story residential development, with a three story retail component on the ground-floor, and possibly a hotel in between. The Wall Street Journal confirms those plans today and says the developers have hired architect Rafael Viñoly to design the tower. The Uruguayan-born architect has designed a number of competent institutional buildings, including the Brooklyn Children's Museum, Bronx Housing Court and the odd police precinct. He also designed the Jazz at Lincoln Center building.

Mr. Viñoly is arguably a disappointing choice to design a soaring tower at the inflection point of one of the city's best retail, office and residential areas. But it's worth remembering that for all of the hubub about Mr. Macklowe's glass cube on Fifth or the Club Med of office towers, 510 Madison, neither were designed by world-renowned architects.

A couple of weeks ago, we wrote that Mr. Macklowe plans to make a comeback, with the 440 Park Avenue site as his stage. Apparently pretty thrilled to be back in the game, he's showing the model to guests in his office in the GM Building, according to The Journal. Ah, to be a fly on that wall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576297553877756770.html?mod=WSJ_NY_LEFTSecondStories

Tower Dreams

Developer Seeks Park Avenue Comeback.Article Stock Quotes Comments more in NewYork-Real Estate ».BY CRAIG KARMIN AND ELIOT BROWN
A venture of CIM Group and Harry Macklowe has hired architect Rafael Viñoly to design a slender, soaring tower on Park Avenue as Mr. Macklowe attempts to pull off his second major comeback.

The 73-year-old, who rebounded the first time after losing properties in the commercial-real-estate collapse of the early 1990s, was one of the hardest-hit developers in the recent downturn. Facing numerous defaults, he had to give up his most valuable holdings, including the General Motors building.

But now he's jumped back into the Manhattan real-estate scrum. His deals this year have included buying the debt on a stalled ...

I believe that 1,000 foot tower shortchanges this project.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313583039236252.html?mod=WSJ_NY_LEFTThirdStories

Will Park Avenue's Drake Hotel Site Get Its Own Glass Cube?
It looks like Harry Macklowe's comeback at the Drake Hotel site on Park Avenue might come in the form of a big glass cube similar to that perched atop the Apple Store nearby on Fifth Avenue. The Wall Street Journal reports that the CIM group, which bought Macklowe's debt after he defaulted on his loans in 1997 for $518 million, is planning to build 10,000 square feet of commercial space along with the Rafael Vinoly-designed residential or possible hotel tower at the Drake site. Macklowe's still involved with the project, and he recently showed off a plan involving a 1,000 foot tower at the site. If all the obstacles are overcome—they still don't own all the property on the site, financing is still an issue, and there are already plenty of hotels opening—we're looking forward to a five-story glass cube with a skyscraper jutting out behind it, according to the plan. The Macklowe train keeps chugging along.
· Park Avenue Project Takes Shine to Glass [WSJ]

For those who don't have access to the wsj paywall:

WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313583039236252.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_MIDDLETopNews)


NY REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL
MAY 10, 2011
New Site Takes Shine to Glass
Macklowe Hopes for Repeat Success Luring Retailers to Park Avenue Project.

By CRAIG KARMIN

Harry Macklowe, the real-estate developer who built the widely praised Apple Inc. store under a glass cube on Fifth Avenue, is hoping that unique design will work a second time.

A venture of CIM Group and Mr. Macklowe plans to include a similar glass structure as part of the skyscraper they are designing for a prime Park Avenue site, according to a person familiar with the matter. The tower, which will mostly house apartments and possibly a hotel or restaurants, also will include about 100,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, the person said.

The location, at Park and 56th Street, which used to be the home of the Drake Hotel, is being closely followed because it's considered to be one of the nation's top development sites. Mr. Macklowe assembled most of it during the boom years but his plans were upended by the downturn, which also wiped out much of his real-estate empire. When developers finally break ground on the site, it will be an important sign that the city's real-estate industry has rebounded.

Mr. Macklowe introduced a 32-foot-tall glass cube on the plaza of the General Motors building in 2006 to help attract foot traffic to the subterranean Apple store at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 59th Street. Apple's flagship Manhattan store, open 24 hours, is the top-grossing retail store in the city.

The plans for the new skyscraper include a five-story glass box on Park at 56th St. The venture plans to market it to luxury retail brands and other potential tenants such as financial firms, automobile dealers and art auction houses, people said. The developers have retained CB Richard Ellis as a retail broker and adviser on the site.

The plans for the site suggest that Los Angeles-based CIM and Mr. Macklowe are beginning to move more quickly on the site. Demolition and other site work has started in recent weeks although full plans haven't yet been filed with the Buildings Department.

CIM last year took control of the site as part of Mr. Macklowe's restructuring process but Mr. Macklowe remains actively involved in the design and planning. Some real-estate executives say Mr. Macklowe has shown off a model for the site that depicts a slender tower rising nearly 1,000 feet. A number of challenges remain. The developers still don't own two properties on the site, which could make it difficult to connect the project to 57th Street. New construction financing remains difficult to obtain, and Manhattan has seen hotels with thousands of new rooms opening recently or expected to open this year.

Still, Faith Hope Consolo, chairman of retail leasing for Prudential Douglas Elliman, says the site's prime location should attract many top global luxury brands. "There are many retailers that have wanted to be on East 57th Street but the space was never available," she says. While many of the top brands already have a presence in the city, she added, the developers may be able to lure some to relocate to the site, in part because a high-end hotel will attract affluent foreign tourists.

Mr. Macklowe bought the Drake Hotel in 2006 for $418 million, then demolished it. He defaulted on his loans in 2007 and CIM bought the debt with a face value of $510 million, agreeing to keep him involved with the project

This sounds like Carnegie 57 story..Love it..

A CIM insider informed me that it has a deal to get the property in the middle that it needs. T&A will be moving, and they don't need Jakob's site. Also, this tower is over 1,000 feet tall.

With respect to the point re: hotels, this will be a small, ultra, high-end hotel for which there is enormous demand in Manhattan. It won't be competing with the hotels that were built in recent years.

Then this should go to the Supertalls section..Right?

No rendering yet?

Then this should go to the Supertalls section..Right?

It should.

No rendering yet?

The tower has been designed by Rafael Vinoly, but it has not been released to the public yet.

^^ you've seen what it looks like though right?

No my friend has.

www.observer.com/2011/real-es...ll-be-capstone

Macklowe Speaks! Drake Will Be 'a Capstone'
Email Print More...By Matt Chaban
May 23, 2011 | 11:48 a.m.

Let's dance!
+Enlarge Patrick McMullan It has been arguably the most watched development site in the city for the past few years, and all the moreso now as Harry Macklowe and his new partners at CIM prepare to build something on the former site of the Drake Hotel. Even though both developers eschew press, details have dribbled out here and there, including a set of drawings for Macklowe's plan of three years ago for a 65-story Armani-branded hotel/condo.

Now, for the first time, the taciturn Mr. Macklowe has spoken publically, if still vaguely, about his plans, talking them up at a Massey Knakal-sponsored conference on Friday, according to Bloomberg:

"I'm pleased to tell you we're moving forward on a piece of land that we own free and clear," Macklowe said yesterday. The development, planned for the site at Park and East 56th Street, "will be a capstone. It will be a monumental building and will be as much of an icon as the Apple cube," in front of the General Motors Building, he said.


Humunah humanah humanah!

mchaban [at] observer.com | @mc_nyo

They sure tryin' to keep this thing interesting..I like it..

This will be amazing!

A lot of teasers, but still no design. :|

TRD (http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/harry-macklowe-s-drake-hotel-tops-list-of-most-valuable-nyc-development-sites)



Drake Hotel tops most valuable NYC development sites list
June 21, 2011 12:00PM

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-NN225_drake0_F_20110414181415.jpg

Harry Maclowe and the Drake Hotel site Harry Macklowe's Drake Hotel site at 440 Park Avenue may be the most valuable development site in New York City, according to a recent list compiled by the New York Observer. It is closely followed by David Levinson's 425 Park Avenue and the World Trade Center site, in positions two and three respectively.

The Observer's list, made in honor of a slew of recent development following a slow start to the year, was compiled using data from Cassidy Turley, Co-Star and its own reporting.

Bringing up the rear of the list in positions nine and 10 are Boston Properties and Related project 740 Eighth Avenue and a 100,000-square-foor glass tower at 450 West 14th Street, atop the High Line.

Back in February, construction was slow as financing remained sluggish and office leasing had only slightly begun to pick up. Since then, development has picked up rapidly, the Observer said. CIM and Harry Macklowe have announced plans for the Drake Hotel site, Gary Barnett's International Gem Tower is rising, Boston Properties' West 55th Street development has signed its first major leases and Hudson Yards is on the verge of doing the same.

Macklowe said of the Drake Hotel site, which will feature an Apple-esque glass cube: "[It] will be a capstone. It will be a monumental building."

Still no rendering?!?

Still no rendering?!?

No.

Why do ppl bump threads asking dumb ass question.

Here's the site on 15 July 2011. It seems that No. 50 is the next to come down.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=13590&d=1310823847
Greenwich Boy at WNY 15 July 2011
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=13590&d=1310823847

Robert, what are the air rights here and what height can we expect?

New Building Permit filed on 27 July 2011. NYC is the co-capital of the world!

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

New Building Permit filed on 27 July 2011. NYC is the co-capital of the world!

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

co-capital?

With London.

i think nyc is still THE capital of the world and London is number 2 because all though it is way ahead of other competing cities. i dont think it really compares to new york

No city comparisons and the likes in here. Please stay on topic, which is the project at 440 Park Avenue, thanks.


Btw, that posted link (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01) doesn't seem to work.

how tall is this building going to be.

i believe that is still a mystery

No city comparisons and the likes in here. Please stay on topic, which is the project at 440 Park Avenue, thanks.


Btw, that posted link (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01) doesn't seem to work.

Try this one. It seems that when RW posts links here, they get truncated.
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=3&passjobnumber=120776482&passdocnumber=01

Curbed (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/08/01/1000_feet_is_now_the_magic_number_on_57th_street.php)


1,000 Feet is Now the Magic Number on 57th Street

Monday, August 1, 2011, by Sara Polsky

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/2010_5_carnegie57.jpg

Not content to let New York by Gehry hang onto the tall building spotlight for too long, there's an update today on One57, the 57th Street Extell-developed megatower that will probably be starting sales this fall. Twenty-two of 90 floors have been built for the 1,004-foot building, according to the Journal—and since New York by Gehry is only 870 feet tall, One57 might take away the "hemisphere's tallest" crown. The state attorney general's office has already approved sales, and there are contracts out, at prices of around $5,000/square foot. And for whatever doesn't get sold, Extell has an insurance plan: an Abu Dhabi government fund has promised to buy any unsold condo units.

If they do all sell, there will be two other 1,000-foot-and-up options nearby. There's the recently-resurrected, 1,050-foot Tower Verre, which will include residential units. Then there's the former Drake Hotel site, which has the rights to be at least 1,000 feet tall and could include luxury condos. Will there be that many takers for high-end, high-up real estate in Midtown?

The 2 Aug 2011 edition of the NY Post reports that CIM has acquired No. 42 East 57th St in connection with the 300m + tower.

The 1 Aug. 2011 WSJ reported the same.

CIM, meanwhile, recently reached agreements to relocate two existing tenants on the south side of 57th street, British clothier Turnbull & Asser and Italian jewelry maker Buccellati. Their departures will allow CIM to demolish the existing stores and open up about 100 feet of space on the block, say people familiar with the matter.
The Los Angeles investors considered a boutique hotel at the site, which faces the five-star Four Seasons Hotel on 57th street, but are now expected to devote that space to luxury condos or office and retail, people who know CIM say.
The project is being designed by Rafael Vinoly.
CIM acquired the site of the former Drake Hotel on Park Avenue last year for $305 million, according to public property records. A CIM spokesman declined to comment on the project's financing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/showdown_on_east_th_st_yilu5Upz6OIllpiefjPX2O?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=)


Showdown on East 57th St.

Last Updated: 1:57 AM, August 2, 2011
Posted: 12:00 AM, August 2, 2011

http://jewelrystore77.com/wp-content/plugins/WPRobot3/images/4d3f8_2575432840_67215bcfe2.jpg

A classic, only-in-Manhattan holdout struggle is unfolding at 48 E. 57th St., one of a half-dozen retail townhouses CIM Group wants to raze for its planned skyscraper on the former Drake Hotel site.

While CIM hopes to build a 1,000-foot-tall tower, at least one piece of the puzzle continues to elude it: the retail townhouse owned by Jacob & Co. The jeweler owns the building, and a source said Jacob and CIM are "at least $20 million apart."

In recent days, CIM nailed down an agreement for Buccellati to give up its lease at 46 E. 57th. CIM owns that building as well as vacant nos. 38, 40, 44, and 50 E. 57th St. Buccellati's exit is said to have been negotiated by Prudential Douglas Elliman's Faith Hope Consolo, who uncharacteristically didn't return a call.

CIM also finalized a long-expected agreement for Turnbull & Asser, which owns 42 E. 57th St., to swap it for 50 E. 57th St. CIM needs to demolish nos. 38-48 to create a new façade with 150 feet of sidewalk frontage.

----

3 August 2011
NY Post

By Lois Weiss

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/potamkin_block_sale_7MH4nw1xCjgb7Zz5wR1dzJ/1

As Post colleague Steve Cuozzo reported yesterday, CIM and Harry Macklowe are making headway in buying out the retail townhouses along the East 57th Street side of the Drake Hotel site.

But it looks like no one is waiting to start working on the site.

Back in May, plans were filed for a new, six-story building designed by SLCE that skirts the townhouse issue by being erected along the rear and vacant 56th Street side and onto Park Avenue. This layout includes retail stores, a lobby, loading docks and cellar levels.


Those plans, however, have not yet been given a green light by the Buildings Dept., and it is unclear if that interim plan, which was likely a "base" for the 70-story skyscraper designed by Raphael Vinoly, will ever be implemented.

No matter, as Macklowe is expected to make a "major" announcement regarding the site come September. Stay tuned.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/potamkin_block_sale_7MH4nw1xCjgb7Zz5wR1dzJ#ixzz1TxjnCaxK

This NB permit was filed with the DOB on 4 August 2011, but it reveals nothing.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=4&passjobnumber=120628776&passdocnumber=05

CIM filed the following demo permit with the DOB on 15 Aug. 2011 for 38 E 57th St.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=120793481&passdocnumber=01

is there any photo?

From SSP. If someones minds the posting here tell me and ill edit my post.

Dimensions of the lot:

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3518/fffrl.jpg

The tower will not rise on that entire area. It will rise over only a small portion of it.


I am super excited to see this ones renderings.

A 300+ meter tower on that plot would be insane slender. :)

And as Robert mentioned. This one will use a "small" portion of the plot and will be the tallest of the 4 midtown biggies. So i except a very slender tower here. He said in SSP, that the Park Av stretch of this plot will house a retail base, so the tower will sit in the middle of the block. Which is very unusual for supertalls nowadays. Furthermore, i guess despite its height, it wont be that much visible from most vantage points of the Park Avenue. Since this building is surrounded and packed by already existing structures. It will have a bigger impact to the Madison Avenue, when seen from the entrance of the Sony building, or the atrium of the IBM tower. I wonder if one could seen it from one of the Trump tower's public outdoor teracces.

And as Robert mentioned. This one will use a "small" portion of the plot and will be the tallest of the 4 midtown biggies. So i except a very slender tower here. He said in SSP, that the Park Av stretch of this plot will house a retail base, sothe tower will sit in the middle of the block. Which is very unusual for supertalls nowadays. Furthermore, i guess despite its height, it wont be that much visible from some vantage points of the park Avenue. Since this building is surrounded and packed by already existing structures. It will have a bigger impact to the Madison Avenue, when seen from the entrance of the Sony building, or the atrium of the IBM tower. I wonder if one could seen it from one of the Trump tower's public outdoor teracces.
isnt 225 w 57th supposed to be around the same height as, or possibly taller than, this tower?

AFAIK this will be the tallest. I think the 225 w 57 one has air right for a 350m tower, while this one has air rights for a 390m tower. I hope Robert can clear that up for us, and if needed correct me.

I know there are zoning sector websites, I've used them before with work, but how do you gather data on air rights and things of that sort so fast Robert?

:cheers:AFAIK this will be the tallest. I think the 225 w 57 one has air right for a 350m tower, while this one has air rights for a 390m tower. I hope Robert can clear that up for us, and if needed correct me.

That's correct. In fact, 440 Park could be more like 420m. 225 will be between 300m and 350m depending upon what the developer builds. If it has an office component, it will be around 300m. If it's purely residential/hotel, it will be at least 350m!

With the success that Extell is having with One 57, which likely will be the lamest of the four residential supertalls, I say "Bring on Torre Verre, 440 Park and 225 W 57th ASAP!"

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/brokers-peddle-98-5m-penthouses-at-extell-developments-one57-on-57th-street

Penthouses at Extell's One57 ask $98.5MAugust 18, 2011 08:30AM

Extell President Gary Barnett and a rendering of One57
Two stellar penthouses at One57, Extell Development's prospective 1,000-foot condominium and hotel tower on West 57th Street, are being shopped around by the city's biggest brokers for $98.5 million apiece, the New York Post reported.

One penthouse on the 90th floor will clock in at 10,923 square feet, the Post said, while the other, on the 75th floor, will be 12,554 square feet. They may be the priciest preconstruction condos ever, sources said.

Slated to be the city's largest residential tower at 90 floors, the building is slated to be completed within two years. The developer is partnering on the project with an Abu Dhabi government fund, which controls most of the equity.

Designed by Christian de Portzamparc, the building will have a Park Hyatt hotel on its first 30 floors, and 95 luxury condos will take up the remaining 60 floors. [Post]

Wow. Looks like I wont be living in the penthouse afterall...

420 meters would be taller than the ESB not including the antenna. If this building has a great design, it could become a new symbol of NYC.

:cheers:

In fact, 440 Park could be more like 420m.

................. Oh my God! Oh my God oh my God! :D

http://halfmanhalfgreek.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/orgasm-face.jpg

420 meters would be taller than the ESB not including the antenna. If this building has a great design, it could become a new symbol of NYC.

Correct! :cheers:

Correct! :cheers:

Do you reall think there is a chance that this tower will be 420 meters though.

420m! :drool:

Do you reall think there is a chance that this tower will be 420 meters though.

Very real!

If this tower rises to over 400m. It could pave the way for a new generation of height in midtown. Since this one would dominate very much, towers around 320m - 350m can't be called " toot all " anymore. Since they would rather "fill" skyline voids, than dominate. I simply hope that everything will work out, and not end in the never built section.

Isn't this tower on 57th Street? Or is it at the intersection of 57th and Park? Can someone explain the name to me?

And also, the guy making this is also making One57, Verre and 225 right?

Isn't this tower on 57th Street? Or is it at the intersection of 57th and Park? Can someone explain the name to me?

And also, the guy making this is also making One57, Verre and 225 right?

This towers on 57 n park, and the drake hotel was here until it recently was demolished.

And CIM is building this, Hines is doing Verre, and Extell is doing C57 and 225 W57th. A lot to keep track of.

Truly an exciting time to be a skyscraper fan of NY!

Very real!
but are you certain?:poke:

Don't forget that this beautiful -- but mere 225m -- tower will be joining the four new 300m+ towers planned for 57th St!

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5674/200942919559.jpg

Don't forget that this beautiful -- but mere 225m -- tower will be joining the four new 300m+ towers planned for 57th St!

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5674/200942919559.jpg

and that isnt even including the almost countless array of projects occuring in other parts of the city. America, specifically New York, is still the king of the skyscraper. New York is such an amazing city.

420m:rofl:

i hope they will build it!

enough of little towers we need this

They should make it 440 meters tall to correspond with its address.

They should make it 440 meters tall to correspond with its address.

or 444m to be higher than the ESB:lol:

Or 1288m to be taller than the Kingdom Tower :lol::rofl:

Around which street will this be built?

Looking at the thread title I guess it would be Park Avenue...

Park Avenue, between the 56 and 57th street to be correct.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people better DRAMATICALLY lower their expectations for this tower. It will be very tall but very conventional and boring. It will not remotely rival Torre Verre (or even One57).

^^ That's awesome news cause I like boring design :banana2:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people better DRAMATICALLY lower their expectations for this tower. It will be very tall but very conventional and boring. It will not remotely rival Torre Verre (or even One57).

Lol it's okay. A lot of the people on SSC only care about height. Forget the design, how it looks, if it's economically feasible, or even it's 95% vacant. They just care about height. :cheers:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people better DRAMATICALLY lower their expectations for this tower. It will be very tall but very conventional and boring. It will not remotely rival Torre Verre (or even One57).
i thought you said you never saw the actual design? how do you know it wont have a nice design?

I can't say anything further, and I'm too disappointed to even care about this project anymore.

Imagine this at half the thickness and an extra 500 feet in height. Monumentally boring in my mind.

http://www.xtimeline.com/__UserPic_Large/3157/ELT200710291638162508821.JPG

^^ It's beautiful :cheers:

I can't say anything further, and I'm too disappointed to even care about this project anymore.

Imagine this at half the thickness and an extra 500 feet in height. Monumentally boring in my mind.

http://www.xtimeline.com/__UserPic_Large/3157/ELT200710291638162508821.JPG
LOL. when they compared it to the Apple cube they werent kidding.

Guys.... I very much doubt it will just be a box and where are you getting the idea it will be a boring design... I wouldn't mind if it was a box but I very much doubt it will be that.

I knew it was too good to be true..

It's very disappointing that such a prime site will yield such an utterly mundane design that, but for the height, would be fitting for an empty parking lot in the. W30s between 8th and 9th Aves.

i dont realy care about the height i just want an iconic design :/ this sucks. any chance of a redesign? do you know anything about the base of the tower? maybe that holds all the beauty.

It would look so much better with a subtle tapering. I like the glass though.

PS: The developer is also considering a version of the same boring design in the 900 to 1000 foot range, which woud be great news since this lame box would be less visible on the skyline.

^^ Man that's horrible news. There are already enough 900-1000 footers. The city needs a new 1400 footer.

It's great news if it's actually downsized (which is not likely) bec it would be a disaster to have a very tall, bland box dominating the Midtown skyline.

Are we expecting something like this to be the new midtown skyline Robert?

http://s7.directupload.net/images/110820/b3qtk3xb.jpg

copyright by: Grandscape

It's great news if it's actually downsized (which is not likely) bec it would be a disaster to have a very tall, bland box dominating the Midtown skyline.

:ohno::ohno: ugghhh why would they do something stupid like that. Its not the 60's anymore

We have news from bad to worse... :dunno:

Keep your expectations VERY, VERY, VERY low. This will be no Torre Verre, no Beekman Place, etc. This will be an extremely lame tower regardless of how tall it turns out to be.

If you find this to be exciting, you'll be thrilled. If you find a tall version of this to be a let down for one of the most valuable skyscraper sites in the world, then you'll be as disappointed as I am.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5302002442_261643c0f6_o_d.jpg

Then again, was it reasonable to expect an icon from any project in which this guy is involved?

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/12/1217_biggest_losers/image/6_harry_macklowe.jpg

Keep your expectations VERY, VERY, VERY low. This will be no Torre Verre, no Beekman Place, etc. This will be an extremely lame tower regardless of how tall it turns out to be.

If you find this to be exciting, you'll be thrilled. If you find a tall version of this to be a let down for one of the most valuable skyscraper sites in the world, then you'll be as disappointed as I am.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5302002442_261643c0f6_o_d.jpg


To be honest, I don't think that design is too bad. Make it more "rounded" on the corners and make sure the proportions of the setbacks are nice and I'm sure we could have something really good in Midtown :)

To be honest, I don't think that design is too bad. Make it more "rounded" on the corners and make sure the proportions of the setbacks are nice and I'm sure we could have something really good in Midtown :)

It won't have rounded corners or setbacks. It's a VERY DISAPPOINTING tall box.
S

Then again, was it reasonable to expect an icon from any project in which this guy is involved?

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/12/1217_biggest_losers/image/6_harry_macklowe.jpg

Who is that guy?

Kanto, In all due respect, you seem to be either ten years old or mental.

From SSP. I am soooooooo dissapointet. Vinoly should be banned from working as an architect.

I'm sorry if this has been posted, but is this it Robert?

http://cdn.archinect.net/images/615x/qb/qbz0hxord1rwvc4d.jpg

http://cdn.archinect.net/images/615x/rc/rc33h9hm2e4hr0h4.jpg

EDIT: i posted this earlier today. Seems like i was almost right with the dimensions.

Are we expecting something like this to be the new midtown skyline Robert?

http://s7.directupload.net/images/110820/b3qtk3xb.jpg

copyright by: Grandscape

From SSP. I am soooooooo dissapointet. Vinoly should be banned from working as an architect.



EDIT: i posted this earlier today. Seems like i was almost right with the dimensions.

Vinoly is a star, as are the people who work for him. Look at what he's doing in London.

Cheap "developers" are to blame. Thank goodness that Hines is around and that this schmuck is not solely responsible for NY's future.

http://assets.portfolio.com/images/site/editorial/executives/2007/05/macklowe-large.jpg

Well...at least it's economical. And any monolith that high is definitely iconic. Maybe some sort of interesting night lighting could save this project.

This building could use some sore of crown pinnacle, it would turn it from lame to genius. Lighting would surely help as well.

I hated the Beekman, One57, the new WTC at first, and got used to them and love them now. But i don't think i will ever love this one, and i hope it will go to the never built section. Height is not everything. Furthermore, it is def. too tall for the area in question.

The location, and the height, and the knowledge what stood there, all factors are screaming for something iconic. And all Macklowe and Vinoly think of, is a simple ugly box, with a Park Avenue Apple shed infront of it. -.-

Kanto, In all due respect, you seem to be either ten years old or mental.

Look pal, I'm not from the US and I don't have the slightest reason to know him. So tell me, who is he?

Look pal, I'm not from the US and I don't have the slightest reason to know him. So tell me, who is he?

I think he is the architect. I didn't know who that was in the picture at first either. And all of you disliking the design, yes it is boring, but it still has potential in it's cladding and it's lighting scheme at night. Yes the shape is boring, but other factors could yet make this tower nice.

Look pal, I'm not from the US and I don't have the slightest reason to know him. So tell me, who is he?

I think he is the architect. I didn't know who that was in the picture at first either. And all of you disliking the design, yes it is boring, but it still has potential in it's cladding and it's lighting scheme at night. Yes the shape is boring, but other factors could yet make this tower nice.

You can't infer from his post?

That is the developer, Harry Macklowe. :ohno:

You can't infer from his post?

That is the developer, Harry Mackowe. :ohno:

I skimmed the article quickly. Settle down:ohno:

I feel happy and angry.

I disagree with many of you. I find this design to be very nice. Geometric designs age better than many other designs. Congradulations to NYC!!!

The render instantly brings Trump Chicago to my mind.

^^ I like Trump Chicago :banana2:

holy ****!

is it really 420m tall?

it would be a higher roof than wtc1!

if they will build it, first they will say its boring and to big, but after a few years this tower is a landmark from ny.

personally i like this tower and it will give a WOW effect when you look from the street of this building

its like trum world tower but mutch more height

I don't know..I'll have to take a good look on the final renders before the judge..

the idea is very good

just build a huge tower and everybody wants to buy a appartament in the building and you can sell it to very very expensive prices...

holy ****!

is it really 420m tall?

it would be a higher roof than wtc1!

if they will build it, first they will say its boring and to big, but after a few years this tower is a landmark from ny.

personally i like this tower and it will give a WOW effect when you look from the street of this building

its like trum world tower but mutch more height


According to measurements STR did for SSP, this tower has a height of 433m and a width of 28,6m.

I like the original international style buildings, like Lever House and Seagram, because they were the first ones to be build that way. But in 2011 i think, we should get over this boxes, which e.g. destroyed the appeal of the lower Manhattan skyline, when seen from Brooklyn to a certain degree.

This one, would def. not add sexyness to the skyline, rather make it less apealing than it is now.

The Verre, One57 and i hope the other Extell biggie will give the skyline class and new heights, while this one will give it just height. I beg that the shown "renders" arent what we can expect to rise in such a prime location.

Instead of grabbing the once in a lifetime chance of a 433m building in midtown Manhattan, to make it an icon. They just try to build a big money making box. if Macklowe would be a genius, he could take this chance as a big PR thingy, to make this tower an absolutley good looking gem and advertise with it. The big box, wont do anything, but disappoint...i rather sacrifice a supertall in NYC, than having this.

my 2 cents

The render instantly brings Trump Chicago to my mind.

Trump Chicago is a much better tower than this is. That is not a box.

the world trade center was also to heigh for the skyline in lower manhattan, i think with such less space they will build just a box. its not the most nice building but i would be happy if they will build it.

a height from 433m is just crazy!

thats a big chance

When do you think they are likely to show of official renders and begin to build?

^^It is only proposed yet.

^^It is only proposed yet.

Ahh ok. When do you think it will be approved... By next year?

Ahh ok. When do you think it will be approved... By next year?

I have no clue. Maybe Robert Walpole knows.

i for myself hope that THIS design will never be built.

I have no clue. Maybe Robert Walpole knows.

I'm pretty sure this is an as of right development, meaning it doesn't require any approvals.

I'm pretty sure this is an as of right development, meaning it doesn't require any approvals.

That's correct.

I'm pretty sure this is an as of right development, meaning it doesn't require any approvals.

Thank you, I didn't know that.
As of rights still requires a safety approval and an air rights check though doesn't it?
Other than most proposals which requires approval through the city board.

As a skyscraper enthusiast, 433m(1421ft)in NY is just so much, and I want it BAD. But the design is just a box, and nowadays, boxes aren't really worthy of dominating skylines. However we must remember: The Twin Towers were boxes. They were gigantic boxes almost as tall as this thing (but a lot wider). At first they were hated as well, but they soon became icons. I think if this thing looks good enough (basically all that's left that could make it look good is the cladding), it could become a wonderful icon. My two cents.

they became icons not for their size but what happened to them. unless that happens again to this tower(hope not) this wont become an icon. im hoping there is time for design review....all it needs to be at least remotely acceptable is a different clad.

The Twin Towers were icons long before 9/11. That's why they were targeted.

I dont mind the tower and think it will look ok... I know it's a box but basing it on that one render which isn't really detailed is a bit far. Although I suppose they could of at least done something to it..l weather it be an indent in it, a spire on top.

they became icons not for their size but what happened to them. unless that happens again to this tower(hope not) this wont become an icon. im hoping there is time for design review....all it needs to be at least remotely acceptable is a different clad.

Like someone else said, the Twins were icons long before they were destroyed. But just became much larger icons after they were destroyed. But the point of my post was to say that at first many people didn't like them. After a while they, they became loved.

Folks, this building, if it'll be 433m, could become the second most beautiful building in the world second only to the Willis Tower. Sorry, but I am absolutely obsessed with boxes :banana2:

I like boxes, too. If they have a good cladding.

well the twins also had a few more things to give them that iconic status. like being tallest in the world. and being twins. this tower has none of those. i don't see this becoming iconic at all.

The twins were also iconic because they were a part of the world TRADE center. A symbol of freedom and the prosperity of free enterprise. It's the reason al Qaeda took it out as well.

which is just another reason this one wont be iconic

^^ The tallest building in a city is always iconic. You can't miss such a building when observing the skyline :dunno:

if this buidling has a visitor platform it will be higher than the platform from the wtc1 and much more heigh than the platform from the ESB. NY has 2 famous platforms now, maybe in a few years 4 of them, ESB, rockefeller, wtc1 and this one

^^ The tallest building in a city is always iconic. You can't miss such a building when observing the skyline :dunno:

Except it won't be the tallest, or the most important. And it'll be so thin that from many angle you might just miss it.

^^ I agree that 29 meters is rather thin but I still think that it might become the new icon of NYC.

This Tower would be so famous because it is very narrow.

they should make it look like flatiron building but taller. it could be the flatiron building of the future

I like the tall thin box as an addition to the skyline. Can't wait to see it finished!

A geometric concrete exoskeleton holding up the glass innerstructure looks so simple and nice...

No, it doesn't. What a horrible 70s brutalist design. Please, please NYC - don't allow them to build this crap.

And this sucker of a box is the reason why the Drake Hotel and the little gems next to it had to go? :no:

This building will occupy the place of the now demolished Drake Hotel.Some other small,and quite pretty buildings were demolished as well.A big loss if you ask me. :ohno:

http://a.imageshack.us/img828/9149/455880255b76095e7dcb.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img836/4263/4557810941e8f646f92b.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img841/7029/455785620c2d2b76ae0b.jpg

Source:Wired New York (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13337)

No, it doesn't. What a horrible 70s brutalist design. Please, please NYC - don't allow them to build this crap.

And this sucker of a box is the reason why the Drake Hotel and the little gems next to it had to go? :no:

It will look good. Especially if they build it at 420 m

rough massing model.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7242/tv002.jpg

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/918/tv003b.jpg

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4765/tv005.jpg

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/4686/tv004.jpg

:lol: That's terrible.

Disgusting :puke:

Disgustin is still a too positive adjactive to be used for this monster. It is one of the the ugliest proposals, i have ever seen. No matter what it's cladding will be, it will be a gargantuan tall BOX, with no appeal, nothing. I hate it too much.

Lol, you would think they would at least do something with the top.

It will look good. Especially if they build it at 420 m

433:nuts:

I love it! I dont know why but I just do. Although if they out a spire on top that would just finish it off.. Also see on your second picture.. What is that tall building to the right of the picture

433:nuts:

Even better! Also just realised it was the tower verre on the second photo.. Looks beautiful.

That's Tower Verre. And in the future please don't quote a chain of images that's on the same page.

Thats the planned Tower Verre, next to the MOMA. It's on 53rd street, designed by Jean Novuel and will be 320m tall. It has its dedicated thread somewhere.

[QUOTE=STR;83110618]rough massing model.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7242/tv002.jpg

whats the name of this building in sketchup?

This disgusting bastard would ruin Manhattan's beloved skyline from most perspectives.

Damn, stop this madness! :ohno:

A 433m tower verre and a 320m 440Park avenue^^

That's not an official render, it's a model to put into perspective the effect a building that large would have. It will be a box, but those images STR so kindly posted don't reflect what will be built. We only sort of know height, and that it's a box. So everyone relax.

Sure. But a box at that height and location is nothing but... ridiculous.

I agree, with what we've heard which has been hearsay, I'm not thrilled. But let's wait for a render, boxes are all about the details and we don't have any thus far.

wow. I just realized something. If this gets built, NYC could potentially have 4 buildings that are 400+ meteres high to the roof, those being 1 wtc, 2 wtc, this, and possibly the north tower of the hudson yards development. That would be impressive.

^Only three. 2WTC is 1270ft to the roof, which is only 387m. Unless the 1429 figure is real and actually the spire height and the roof is indeed 1349ft XD

whatever. in total height, it will still have 4.

boxes are awesome! look at the world trump tower :drool: :cheers:
I do hope that this tower will get a better design ;)

I would be happy to take this to Toronto. we are famous for boring boxes after all!

wow this tower is skinny! it looks impressive but not imposing. i think if it gets nice cladding its gonna look good.

This was posted by RW on SSP. I am VERY curious what it might mean.

There's a surprise that's better than a good facade.

AWESOME! build it!:cheers:

This was posted by RW on SSP. I am VERY curious what it might mean.

Might he mean even more height? Maybe it'll be taller then Willis's roof? XD Or even ACC's spire? :D

^^ I wonder to what height such a thin structure can rise. I'd love to see it taller than 433m but I wonder, wouldn't it be just a core with a facade if it would rise any higher? :dunno:

^^ I wonder to what height such a thin structure can rise. I'd love to see it taller than 433m but I wonder, wouldn't it be just a core with a facade if it would rise any higher? :dunno:

Probably not much higher.

I like it :cheers:

It just needs a spire on the top and it'll be fantastic

The proportions are definitely odd. If it had half the height it would be Ok.

I like it. It´s a needle and somehow different, but good.

:storm:

i like this more than tower verre. but than again i hate tower verre^^ i think this building isnt bad nor good, so im good with it. its kinda nice to see that a building in new york is tall and doesnt have a unique design, because it kinda bugs me that most towers there try to be unique and then make the skyline less simple and beautiful.

Might he mean even more height? Maybe it'll be taller then Willis's roof? XD Or even ACC's spire? :D

Is it not already taller than the Williston roof with this tower being 433? I could be wrong though.

i like this more than tower verre. but than again i hate tower verre^^ i think this building isnt bad nor good, so im good with it. its kinda nice to see that a building in new york is tall and doesnt have a unique design, because it kinda bugs me that most towers there try to be unique and then make the skyline less simple and beautiful.

So true! You can't have too many unique buildings or it will make the skyline look weird. You have got to have simple designs as well to balance it out. I can't wait to find out what the surprise will be... Maybe a spire? Although I think the tower verre is a beautiful building.

It is the "oddness" in proportionalism that i somehow like :)

Is it not already taller than the Williston roof with this tower being 433? I could be wrong though.

No, it's shorter because the roof of the Willis Tower is 442 meters tall :cheers:

Is it not already taller than the Williston roof with this tower being 433? I could be wrong though.

Not quite. Willis's roof is 442m (1451ft), while this is suggested to be 433m (1420ft). And for comparison, Guangzhou's tallest building, Guangzhou IFC is 437m (1435ft), and Shenzhen's tallest is Kingkey 100 which is 442m (1449ft). So if this thing does go to 433m, it would stack up quite well in the world :)

And Kanto. I'd appreciate it if you didn't answer a question that was directed to me.

For me this building would be a perfect edition to nyc's already extremely impressive skyline. For me simple is better for multiple reasons:
1. it costs less
2. it is structurally more strong (usually square buildings are)
3. floor space can be used efficiently
Plus I just like the way it looks.
Don't get me wrong though I love original designs also but for me I find it very disappointing how many people have come to hate simple geometric designs.

For me this building would be a perfect edition to nyc's already extremely impressive skyline. For me simple is better for multiple reasons:
1. it costs less
2. it is structurally more strong (usually square buildings are)
3. floor space can be used efficiently
Plus I just like the way it looks.
Don't get me wrong though I love original designs also but for me I find it very disappointing how many people have come to hate simple geometric designs.

Well said. There's nothing wrong with simple shapes as long as they're constructed with quality in mind.

it was added to skyscraperpage today. all credits go to the page and illustrators obviously:

heighest proposed, construction, built buildings ranked official height in meters:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=51842588

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4029/niuyue.jpg

That's a beast.