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 > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers Discussions of projects under construction between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.
ģ Proposed Skyscrapers



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 March 21st, 2014, 08:27 PM   #301
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,669
Likes (Received): 2628

Definitely my new favourite supertall project in NYC.
__________________

#99, citybooster liked this post
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 21st, 2014, 08:42 PM   #302
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

What! That is taller than Maha Nakon in Bangkok. Fantastic.
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 08:46 PM   #303
#99
Registered User
 
#99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 227
Likes (Received): 368

So does this thread get moved to the big boy club?
__________________

citybooster liked this post
#99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 08:47 PM   #304
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,669
Likes (Received): 2628

Already made a post in the "Requests for moving threads"-thread, a mod should see it soon. Unfortunately this section is not checked as often as the supertalls section, so it may take a day.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 08:58 PM   #305
iamtheSTIG
Registered User
 
iamtheSTIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham - The city of Robin Hood
Posts: 4,242
Likes (Received): 4543

Supertall yeeees!
so 314 meters it is!
Taller than One57 and just shy of Tower Verre, fantastic!
__________________
Aspiring property developer with major ambitions

Check out my Instagram

Nottingham Interactive Development Map

citybooster liked this post
iamtheSTIG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 09:18 PM   #306
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

Moving up to the big boys club, yay!

Wonder if this will have any bearing on what Extell does with 217 Central Park West?
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 09:32 PM   #307
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,530
Likes (Received): 22572

I didn't expect it to be taller than One 57. Extell needs to up its game with 217 w 57th now.
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 09:35 PM   #308
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,669
Likes (Received): 2628

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11 View Post
Extell needs to up its game with 217 w 57th now.
They should up the game with a design that can rival this one.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 09:38 PM   #309
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,530
Likes (Received): 22572

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
They should up the game with a design that can rival this one.
217 might be a postmodern masterpiece, Adrian mith + Gordon Gill have done many iconic projects. It's tough to beat a pre-war inspired design though, and that's what Stern has done best. This building and 30 Park Place are good examples.
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 09:41 PM   #310
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,669
Likes (Received): 2628

Oh, I didn't know AS+GG were doing 217. Definitely a promising prospect.

220CPS (and 30 Park) definitely have the classic design perfected, which I as a layman think is a lot harder than many people think, because the more detail a tower has, the more you can do wrong.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 09:43 PM   #311
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

Quote:
Originally Posted by citybooster View Post
Wonder if this will have any bearing on what Extell does with 217 Central Park West?
Definitely could! This will mean several more floors of partially-obstructed views for Extell, and it's not like they can cantilever any further so... depending on how the numbers pencil out for them, they might have to build higher!
__________________

citybooster, #99, Vertical_Gotham liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 11:21 PM   #312
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 710
Likes (Received): 1891

I'm skeptical about the height of 1031' listed. That is the exact elevation (including the height of the base above sea level) mentioned on the blueprints for the 950' tall version. Might be a mistake in that PLAN / WORK APPROVAL APPLICATION ...
__________________

Vertical_Gotham, Vito Corleone liked this post
McSky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 11:22 PM   #313
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,706
Likes (Received): 28342

Great to read that this one will be supertall.
With quite impressive floor heights btw.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 11:23 PM   #314
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,530
Likes (Received): 22572

Quote:
Originally Posted by McSky View Post
I'm skeptical about the height of 1031' listed. That is the exact elevation (including the height of the base above sea level) mentioned on the blueprints for the 950' tall version. Might be a mistake in that PLAN / WORK APPROVAL APPLICATION ...
I was thinking that as well. we should pay attention to any future permits if this one is rejected. (which is likely if there is a mistake)
__________________

citybooster, Vertical_Gotham liked this post
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2014, 12:13 AM   #315
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,906
Likes (Received): 5172

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES591920798

The drawings clearly show the building is 950' tall, 1031' w/ elevation. Sorry to rain on the parade. But this isn't a supertall.
__________________

Vito Corleone liked this post
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2014, 12:23 AM   #316
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by McSky View Post
I'm skeptical about the height of 1031' listed. That is the exact elevation (including the height of the base above sea level) mentioned on the blueprints for the 950' tall version. Might be a mistake in that PLAN / WORK APPROVAL APPLICATION ...
good catch! It may be too early at this stage to move this sucker in the supertall section right now. It may very well be mistake but It may be correct since the latest plan approval application was just submitted while that blueprints was submitted a while ago. 1031' elevation and 1031' height disclosed in the latest application is suspect though. lol

Just to keep an open mind, changes do occur even after the initial application that we had seem time and time again with last minute height increase of vice versa.

Since the latest plan was submitted by an engineering firm that 1031' height figure may have been calculated with crown which is normally not disclosed in DOB applications.

This latest application has thrown a wrench causing more confusion as I hate uncertainties. lol.

We will just have to wait and see. But what is clear Imo, this tower with the crown will at least approach near supertall status when its said and done.
__________________

citybooster liked this post

Last edited by Vertical_Gotham; March 22nd, 2014 at 12:30 AM.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2014, 03:11 AM   #317
babybackribs2314
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 560
Likes (Received): 545

The drawings are likely slightly outdated; note that they were submitted on 2/25, while the latest filings were submitted on 3/19. I will get to the bottom of this, but I do believe the 1,031' figure is accurate.



Note that it definitely says 'building height,' and the # of units was also dramatically decreased.

Also, compare above with previous plan exam filed 2/3; it does indeed look like the plans have been altered to account for the height increase, and it would make sense; fewer units + higher ceilings = more $$ per square foot.

__________________
My blog with photo updates and development news: New York YIMBY

& follow YIMBY on Twitter! New York YIMBY Twitter

Vertical_Gotham liked this post

Last edited by babybackribs2314; March 22nd, 2014 at 03:23 AM.
babybackribs2314 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2014, 04:11 AM   #318
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

If that's the case that's just awesome!
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2014, 04:56 AM   #319
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,906
Likes (Received): 5172

It still seems awfully coincidental.


To have the new (higher) building height exactly the same as the old plans elevation figure....

I'd believe 1031 if it were different from the old plans.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2014, 05:19 AM   #320
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
The drawings are likely slightly outdated; note that they were submitted on 2/25, while the latest filings were submitted on 3/19. I will get to the bottom of this, but I do believe the 1,031' figure is accurate. Note that it definitely says 'building height,' and the # of units was also dramatically decreased. Also, compare above with previous plan exam filed 2/3; it does indeed look like the plans have been altered to account for the height increase, and it would make sense; fewer units + higher ceilings = more $$ per square foot.
Yea I agree and you make a convincing case. As per latest filing it does indicates that this is indeed a supertall which obviously supersedes all previous filings. This is what we should go by.

220 CPS should move to the supertall section.

New York | 220 Central Park South | 314 m | 1,031 ft | 65 fl | Prep

Manhattan will have a total of 4 clusters made up of supertalls once these projects are realized..

Midtown North cluster
1,423' - Nordstrom
1,400' - Steinway
1,397' - 432 Park Avenue
1,050' - Tower Verre
1,031' - 220 CPS
1,005' - One57

Hudson Yards Cluster
1,800' - Hudson Spire?
1,227' - 30 Hudson Yards
1,216' - 2 Manhattan West
1,100' - 50 Hudson Yards
1,100' - 35 Hudson Yards
1,034' - 3 Hudson Boulevard
1,000' - Sherwood Equities?

Lower Manhattan Cluster
1776' - 1 WTC
1350' - 2 WTC
1170' - 3 WTC
1018' - 80 South Street

42nd Street Cluster
1,200' - 1 Vanderbilt
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)

Last edited by Vertical_Gotham; March 22nd, 2014 at 05:53 AM.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
220 central park, 220 central park south, 220 cps, central park south, cps, new york, nyc, vornado

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 05:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu