daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 23rd, 2013, 12:23 AM   #3121
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

Well, hopefully we'll see a sweet plaza under the cantilever.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:32 AM   #3122
UrbanImpact
Registered User
 
UrbanImpact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Posts: 681
Likes (Received): 1571

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.F.2. View Post
Well, hopefully we'll see a sweet plaza under the cantilever.
There's a building under it..
__________________
Visit My Italy pictures thread (Florence, Rome, Vatican City, Tuscany, Venice, Milan, & Lake Como)!
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1742049

Mahogany, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
UrbanImpact no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:43 AM   #3123
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 713
Likes (Received): 1914

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanImpact View Post
There's a building under it..

__________________

L.A.F.2., TowerVerre:) liked this post
McSky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:47 AM   #3124
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

Gah, I didn't realize that. Man, that'd be sweet to have.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 02:15 AM   #3125
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,349
Likes (Received): 3597

Yeah, that's what the whole fuss was about, and why the LPC had a say in the first place. If it didn't hang over a landmarked building, there wouldn't have been an issue.
__________________

L.A.F.2. liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 02:26 AM   #3126
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

At least they aren't demolishing it. My God, people love to find the most nonsensical things to complain about.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 02:39 AM   #3127
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,349
Likes (Received): 3597

Well many of us were hoping that the cantilever would not be approved, because Barnett's likely move would have been to build higher, in order to preserve some of those ultra-valuable lost square feet with prime Central Park views. But this was his preferred option by far because it's cheaper to build wider (even with a cantilever) than higher.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 03:12 AM   #3128
CCs77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,115
Likes (Received): 2445

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.F.2. View Post
At least they aren't demolishing it. My God, people love to find the most nonsensical things to complain about.
The thing is that the older building under it, called the Art Students League, doesn't belong to the developers, and it is landmarked, so they can't tear it down even if they want. They bought air rights from that building, but since it is not their property and it is also landmarked, they must seek permission to do the cantilever over it. The developers are paying the institution that owns the building 25 million dollars in order to make the cantilever BTW. But since it is landmarked, they also have to have the approval of the Landmarks Commision to do it.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by CCs77; October 23rd, 2013 at 03:17 AM.
CCs77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 03:33 AM   #3129
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Well many of us were hoping that the cantilever would not be approved, because Barnett's likely move would have been to build higher, in order to preserve some of those ultra-valuable lost square feet with prime Central Park views. But this was his preferred option by far because it's cheaper to build wider (even with a cantilever) than higher.
For all we know, Gershon (ie, his real name) may still build higher. He's having a problem selling units in the mid section of One 57.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 03:44 AM   #3130
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6489

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
For all we know, Gershon (ie, his real name) may still build higher. He's having a problem selling units in the mid section of One 57.
True, his problem is he set the price point too high for those mid level units. Sales will pick up once his price adjust accordingly. This should be a valuable lesson learned for Gersh (lol) with One57.

With this Tower, He should build higher to max profits with the higher floors to make up for the lesser, cheaper mid floor units despite the higher construction costs he may incur for building higher. He will make it up with more $50 - $100 million apartments with amazing un obstructed views. This is where the premium is
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 03:53 AM   #3131
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
The thing is that the older building under it, called the Art Students League, doesn't belong to the developers, and it is landmarked, so they can't tear it down even if they want. They bought air rights from that building, but since it is not their property and it is also landmarked, they must seek permission to do the cantilever over it. The developers are paying the institution that owns the building 25 million dollars in order to make the cantilever BTW. But since it is landmarked, they also have to have the approval of the Landmarks Commision to do it.
Yeah, I realize that it couldn't be demolished, I just hate that people care about something that hangs 200 feet over it and affects the building itself none other than maybe a shadow at noon.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:19 AM   #3132
Funkyskunk2
Registered User
 
Funkyskunk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 808

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.F.2. View Post
Yeah, I realize that it couldn't be demolished, I just hate that people care about something that hangs 200 feet over it and affects the building itself none other than maybe a shadow at noon.
Maybe you mean the nimbys but if you mean here no one cares about the landmarked building, we want it redesigned so it will be taller with a less terrible design than the one shown. Or at least I do.
Funkyskunk2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:26 AM   #3133
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,349
Likes (Received): 3597

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
He's having a problem selling units in the mid section of One 57.
I hadn't heard that, it certainly adds an interesting wrinkle. While we've been noted that height isn't the be all and end all for these developers, maybe we've underestimated the dick measuring contest among the super-wealthy buyers of these units.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:53 AM   #3134
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkyskunk2 View Post
Maybe you mean the nimbys but if you mean here no one cares about the landmarked building, we want it redesigned so it will be taller with a less terrible design than the one shown. Or at least I do.
No, I also support a main frame rising straight from the base, I just see no validity in the complaints coming from NIMBYs about the cantilever.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 04:57 AM   #3135
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6489

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
I hadn't heard that, it certainly adds an interesting wrinkle. While we've been noted that height isn't the be all and end all for these developers, maybe we've underestimated the dick measuring contest among the super-wealthy buyers of these units.
If I was a buyer with my billions, will I pay for a mid level for $25 million with views that is blocked by other towers? No way. His asking is too high for those units. There will be better alternatives for that kind of money giving me the money views elsewhere in the city. If Gary lets say adjust those mid units to $5-$10 million range that gives partial great views, then those units will sell, that way those people can say I live in a billionaire building and look really good.

IMO, especially in NYC if you want billionaires to buy & pay your asking, then give them the 360 un obstructed views. This is why the higher apartments has sold well in one57 & 432 PA despite the high asking prices. I'm sure Gary is really thinking hard about this issue with the Nordstrom and hopefully he decides to go higher to offer more un obstructed view apartments set at dizzying prices to max profits.
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 06:35 AM   #3136
Shakkur98
Registered User
 
Shakkur98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 293
Likes (Received): 271

So at a roof height of 1,423 ft, 225 west 57th st is only gonna have 88 floors
The Empire State Building has a roof height of 1,250 ft and has 102 floors
The ceilings or the lobby are going to be really really really high
Shakkur98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:44 PM   #3137
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 69,134
Likes (Received): 29138

You can't compare 2 buildings from a completely different era. Average floor heights are much higher now.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 03:01 PM   #3138
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

I'll wait for some quality renderings which hopefully then will show all the little details in the design. Then I'll pass my final judgement on this tower. Still, it's really sad how far we've come: everyone hopes for at least a somehow decent design, given those horrible massing models.
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 07:09 PM   #3139
rencharles
We will never forget
 
rencharles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 93

Disappointed. Extell from heaven to hell... I don't understand, these guys had the opportunity to do something amazing, and did the opposite. Now, I'll hope that the materials of the facade are of quality, and that the final design (when released) is not an eyesore as we are expecting. But anyway, for me, this project will stand aside and I will pay more attention to other projects in the city: 111 W 57th St, 432 Park, Hudson Yards, 220 CPS, and others.
rencharles no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 07:31 PM   #3140
jconyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 417
Likes (Received): 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by rencharles View Post
Disappointed. Extell from heaven to hell... I don't understand, these guys had the opportunity to do something amazing, and did the opposite. Now, I'll hope that the materials of the facade are of quality, and that the final design (when released) is not an eyesore as we are expecting. But anyway, for me, this project will stand aside and I will pay more attention to other projects in the city: 111 W 57th St, 432 Park, Hudson Yards, 220 CPS, and others.

How can you say such a thing when you haven't seen a rendering?
Speak for yourself....I for one am not expecting an eyesore
__________________

iamtheSTIG liked this post
jconyc no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
217 west 57th street, 225 west 57th street, central park south, cps, extell, new york, nordstrom tower, nyc, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium