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 > 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 September 12th, 2015, 12:54 PM   #21
WR HEARST
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 137

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDee View Post
Hey Ho mon, you may want that, but the economics says that many of these prime located aging mid century office blocks are on their last legs.

Robert Walpole is right:do you think kushner paid 1.8 billion for such a short building?..No,he actually bought a prime location.
However,i fully understand Thatoneguy as i personaly love that building and his embossed aluminium panels;now,that baby is already heavily damaged since the lobby's redesign and the changes on the facade signage....

Last edited by WR HEARST; September 12th, 2015 at 05:27 PM.
WR HEARST no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 13th, 2015, 01:26 AM   #22
Phobos
Registered User
 
Phobos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Porto
Posts: 9,408

The building slated for demolition is generic and apart from the setbacks has nothing unique to NYC character that deserves to be protected.
__________________
www.deforma.wordpress.com

streetscapeer liked this post
Phobos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2015, 01:41 AM   #23
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,872
Likes (Received): 24915

Lemme get this straight, am I reading this right?

t94 is really saying that we shouldn't demolish this:







But should instead demolish this..



Quote:
Originally Posted by t94 View Post
Definitely a bit ridiculous considering a few blocks down the street there is a smaller tower that could arguably be demolished for a ~1400 tower. Best case scenario you could preserve the facade and build the tower on top. I'm all for development, but development in the right places. Midtown calls for the highest density (especially office) density possible and demolishing a large building like this for a tower that will barely be occupied is absurd.



Might be landmarked though. Who knows. I know the developer might be going for high value property that lines fifth avenue, but I feel like there are different options that can be sought after.


If yes, then I have hit a new level of bewilderment at the extent people can like these post-war cheap, filler, crapola boxes.
__________________
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2015, 02:04 AM   #24
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,479

He is saying to preserve the facade of the lower building but built a new building over it. They do this in Toronto.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2015, 02:20 AM   #25
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,872
Likes (Received): 24915

Oh okay, if that's what he's saying that makes a lot more sense and definitely sounds more reasonable. That's what they did with the Hearst tower too here in NY.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 02:08 AM   #26
JohnDee
Registered User
 
JohnDee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Any great city
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 242

I'm sorry, but preserving facades of beautiful old mansions and building on top with a modern addition would ruin the beauty of that old structure afaic. Anything contemporary on top will just destroy the entire feel of it.

I'd much rather see that old banal 50s box demolished or changed than see a beauty like this touched.

No need to commit more crimes against worthy pre war architecture when there are countless horrid mid century towers in the city to remodel.

I have no problem with the conversion to luxury. I do not fear the rich moving in or this fear of sterilization that people seem to be worried about. Offices will move around to another more suitable building if need be. Other neighborhoods will benefit from more development. Neighborhoods will change. It's obvious that the trend for this part of 5th is to become more wealthy and residential. Park areas are becoming more and more expensive and built out. 5th is the next fronteir for luxury investment.
__________________

Last edited by JohnDee; September 14th, 2015 at 02:20 AM.
JohnDee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 02:42 AM   #27
Draegen
I LIKE SKYSCRAPERS
 
Draegen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 466
Likes (Received): 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by t94 View Post
Definitely a bit ridiculous considering a few blocks down the street there is a smaller tower that could arguably be demolished for a ~1400 tower. Best case scenario you could preserve the facade and build the tower on top. I'm all for development, but development in the right places. Midtown calls for the highest density (especially office) density possible and demolishing a large building like this for a tower that will barely be occupied is absurd.
Might be landmarked though. Who knows. I know the developer might be going for high value property that lines fifth avenue, but I feel like there are different options that can be sought after.
That's the University Club of New York there's no way anyone would dare demolish that beautiful building. Google the interior if you want to see what I mean.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Draegen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 08:35 AM   #28
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDee View Post
What? Why the heck would you want to preserve that ugly tower? What merit does it have? It's a dull heavy boxy tower with a plastic looking facade. That is the kind of building that ruined midtown's beauty over the decades. The best case sceneario is that it's knocked down and something modern and interesting takes it's place. 5th avenue should be an elegant street with interesting buildings, not a clone of corporate and sterile looking Park Avenue.

How do you even know that tower is available. This might be the only building they could acquire or that it made sense to acquire financially. The developer has competition for sites and will take what he can get. It's not an open buffet.

There is nothing absurd about it. The developer will do it if it makes him a profit, period. That doesn't matter whether it's law firms or oligarchs. Offices are moving to newer buildings anyway. There is plenty of new office development over on the West Side and in Midtown East. Nothing says that 5th should have primarily offices on it if high value residential clients want to live there (or just own there) and will pay better rents.

As for all those bashing Hadid, the tower in Miami is world class/innovative avant-garde and far better than most modernist NY glass boxes that are going up everywhere and have little to catch the eye. As for your worries, I assume the tower in NY will never be as ostentatious. NY is a conservative town in terms of architecture. That is obvious, given most of the towers going up pay homage to the past in some way or else are simple modernist boxes. I expect something more toned down but still something that lights a fire under NY's architectural ass.

I don't know why you are mentioning that beautiful old building. That's the kind of architecture we need to remain in NY, not be bought and demolished.
It's because tearing down stuff like the existing tower and putting in this low density nonsense is not what midtown is about. Yes, I get it, a lot of international architecture gets a bad rep, and for a good reason. That being said, the existing property is still absolutely huge and it's a shame to see a massive tower relative to other smaller parcels of land gets demolished while there are still other lower density areas that could be seemingly redeveloped. What I posted was an example of something that didn't quite suite midtown.

Midtown is about soul crushing density, centralizing office space and maximizing the efficiency and practicality of urban operations. Tearing down this to put in some slender money pit that no one is going to live in ruins the aspect of what midtown is about. I agree, the building is not the cutting edge of 60's-70's architecture, but the issue lies deeper than that.
__________________
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 08:46 AM   #29
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844

Alright, and another further explanation to my post which got absolutely nuked by some preservationist try hards, NY has plenty of old buildings. I get it and even agree to an extent. We need to preserve these great examples of architecture, as they identify NYC and separate the city from a lot of modern metropolis's that are going up on the International scene. These buildings are an excellent relic of a bygone era that had a lot of character. Again, I agree and get it, and even am for newer construction resembling these older buildings.

That being said, what I posted was an example of a low density 3 story building lining a fifth avenue street corner nonetheless being absolutely dwarfed by modern towers. While it does NOT have to be this tower itself I'm still for putting the density where it counts and not taking down perfectly functional office buildings so we can put in a new slender high rise for 100 billionaries who are never going to live there to sink their money into it just to have an inflation-proof asset. I recommend that we preserve the facade but build a new tower on top of it. It doesn't even have to be this one, just some of the lower density complexes that are around midtown. Once again, an example.

It's not all about MUH OLD BUILDINGS and MUH ONE OUT OF A SIMILAR MILLIONS EXAMPLE IN THE ENTIRE NYC METROPOLITAN AREA every single time. It's about the city too. I see both sides of the issue, but I feel that tearing down a functional, high density office tower is not worth it to put in some pseudo-building that doesn't even do anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDee View Post
Hey Ho mon, you may want that, but the economics says that many of these prime located aging mid century office blocks are on their last legs.
Ironically you say this as there has been a push this decade for re-centralizing office development back into the core of the city away from their suburban headquarters they moved into decades ago, calling for renovations and development. While an isolated example, Johnson Controls is considering moving out of their own HQ and putting in a brand new tallest building in Milwaukee.

"Not enough old buildings."



There are way more beautiful examples of architecture in less prime spots that virtually occupy the majority of NYC. The demo of one 3 story building smack in the middle of midtown is not going to give you leukemia.
__________________

Last edited by t94; September 14th, 2015 at 08:57 AM.
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 11:34 AM   #30
JohnDee
Registered User
 
JohnDee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Any great city
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 242

Sorry, but if you take that attitude all the old small buildings in midtown will eventually be gone or brutally altered. I'd much rather see these banal hulks erased despite the fact that they house many offices. At least we get a chance of more interesting modern architecture that is lighter and less soul destroying as well as keeping the few decent ornate gem midtown buildings that the tourists love and makes nyc stand out from most U.S. cities.

I don't fear the sterilization of midtown just because luxury towers are replacing some offices. you say midtowns about soul crushing density of offices, etc. Well,,midtown is what the market wants, not what history dictates. So areas in midtown will be in flux with the economic winds. If offices are displaced by rich housing around 5th, and this area becomes lower density/more exclusive, then the market has spoken. That will determine it and that's Ny capitalism for you. 5th may very well change someday, but I doubt the addition of some luxury towers will do anything to cut down this density you talk about. I'm Not worried because displaced functions will move elsewhere in midtown or downtown, boosting density and development there. So no loss of density and vibrancy overall. Unless the government regulates developers more, this flux isn't stopping anytime soon. they will go for whatever can get them the better returns. In this case, this tower must have been a better catch financially and may yield a better profit as luxury condos compared to an office lease. It also must have the best location, square footage, yada yada yada compared to whatever other site was on the market.
__________________

Last edited by JohnDee; September 14th, 2015 at 01:35 PM.
JohnDee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2015, 11:25 PM   #31
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844



Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I am not for demolishing all old buildings, as I was really saddened to see Drake Hotel bite the dust to make way for 432 PA, and honestly what we both deem fit for demo or preservation is obviously different. (Honestly I'm for preserving the vast majority of larger, older structures.) Not to mention I wasn't even for demoing the building, but instead rather keeping the facade with the tower on top of it.

You are right of course on how the market will change midtown however it pleases, for better or for worse, but that still doesn't negate the fact that spreading out businesses and buildings, making people travel farther, removing that "knowledge spillover", and yes even destroying that vicinity's "dense atmospheric vibe" is still a negative consequence for the urban landscape. Obviously I know very little about markets, real estate, the whole nine yards and perhaps tearing down this massive office tower is more economically feasible, but from an urban aspect I'm just not seeing it.
__________________

Last edited by t94; September 14th, 2015 at 11:32 PM.
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 07:33 AM   #32
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,872
Likes (Received): 24915

Quote:
Originally Posted by t94 View Post


Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I am not for demolishing all old buildings, as I was really saddened to see Drake Hotel bite the dust to make way for 432 PA, and honestly what we both deem fit for demo or preservation is obviously different. (Honestly I'm for preserving the vast majority of larger, older structures.) Not to mention I wasn't even for demoing the building, but instead rather keeping the facade with the tower on top of it.

You are right of course on how the market will change midtown however it pleases, for better or for worse, but that still doesn't negate the fact that spreading out businesses and buildings, making people travel farther, removing that "knowledge spillover", and yes even destroying that vicinity's "dense atmospheric vibe" is still a negative consequence for the urban landscape. Obviously I know very little about markets, real estate, the whole nine yards and perhaps tearing down this massive office tower is more economically feasible, but from an urban aspect I'm just not seeing it.
One point I do agree with you and others on is that I would rather see another office building here than a luxury condo.

Where we seem to differ is that you and others value this building and want to preserve it (even if it were to be replaced with another office building like at 425 Park, it seems), whereas I don't necessarily value it (nor do I really hate, for the record).
__________________

t94, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 08:05 AM   #33
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844



I would actually be for tearing down this current building as long as something significantly larger and of higher quality was built there.

This is the only reason why I would be for tearing down the aforementioned art deco 3 story, replacing it (or preserving the facade) with a slender, denser, higher quality tower that would suit that small spot perfectly.
__________________
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2015, 08:58 PM   #34
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844

Quote:
Originally Posted by WR HEARST View Post
OK..i got it!Obviously,architecture is not your lifetime passion:that building has nothing Art Deco..
Not really, it has the traditional ornamentation and the strong, bold shapes associated with the style. I suppose the most significant thing it lacks is the strong vertically associated with taller buildings like ESB and Chrysler. It may be more neo-gothic. My apologies, I'm only still learning.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2015, 11:57 PM   #35
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,510
Likes (Received): 22488

Hadid's vision is supposed to be 1400'.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/10/real-es...wer-into-mall/

Quote:
Real estate heavyweights Steve Roth and Jared Kushner are mulling a plan to reposition the 1957-era aluminum-clad 666 Fifth Ave. office tower into a 1,400-foot vertical mall, hotel and residential tower.

The Post has also learned that Pritzker Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid has already prepared a scheme that would restack the current 41-story building into a slender, super-tall hotel and residential tower above a vertical retail podium.
[...]
It is envisioned here in a cityrealty rendering, right of 432 Park - towering over 53w53rd:

http://www.6sqft.com/subway-inn-site...pertall-tower/

Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2015, 02:23 AM   #36
1Undershaft
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 50

NEW YORK | 666 Fifth Ave | 1,400 Ft | 427 M | Fl | Pro

Coming after his enormous success with 240 CPS, Steve Roth of Vornado seeks to redevelop 666 5th into a 427m condo deigned by Zaha Hadid.

The current tower has already been largely emptied.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/10/real-es...wer-into-mall/

"Real Estate heavyweights mull turning Fifth Ave. tower into mall"

By Lois Weiss September 10, 2015 | 12:02am

Real estate heavyweights Steve Roth and Jared Kushner are mulling a plan to reposition the 1957-era aluminum-clad 666 Fifth Ave. office tower into a 1,400-foot vertical mall, hotel and residential tower.

The Post has also learned that Pritzker Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid has already prepared a scheme that would restack the current 41-story building into a slender, super-tall hotel and residential tower above a vertical retail podium.

Because of its location, a significant part of the tower would have unobstructed views of Central Park.

While a partner in the office portion — Roth’s company, Vornado Realty Corp. — controls the building’s Fifth Avenue retail condominium, which they purchased from Kushner Companies, Carlyle and Crown Acquisitions in 2012 for $710 million.

Known as a visionary, Roth is now developing the 950 foot-tall 220 Central Park South, which has sold over $1.6 billion, including a $200 million-plus penthouse.

“It is an extraordinary product and it’s a super location,” Roth enthused on the quarterly conference call in August.

The company previously developed 731 Lexington Ave. and the luxury residential condominium at One Beacon Court on the full-block former Alexander’s site and has redevelopment plans for the Hotel Pennsylvania and other areas around Penn Station.

The Kushner Cos. owns over 100 buildings in New York and is a major builder in New Jersey. It turned the top of the Puck Building into luxury penthouses and is redeveloping portions of Dumbo, Gowanus and Williamsburg.

Should the developers move ahead with the reimagined 666 Fifth plan, Vornado would be able to combine its retail and office assets into a spectacular new tower. The Zara store is a separately owned condominium and would be unaffected, sources said, but some office tenants, such as Colliers International, would need to relocate.

Neither Kushner nor Vornado returned requests for comment.

Such a project on the E. 52rd to 53rd Street block front would also create a new 50-yard line for high-end retail along the most expensive corridor in the world. It would become one of the first new major towers on Fifth Avenue since Kushner’s father-in-law developed Trump Tower in 1983 and Dr. Axl Stawski developed 505 Fifth in 2006.

“Given its proximity to Bergdorf and Saks and the Fifth Ave address, it’s a no-brainer,” said Faith Hope Consolo, chairman of Douglas Elliman Retail. “New York is a retail rich city and we’ve now proven that vertical retail works in Manhattan.”
__________________

desertpunk, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by 1Undershaft; December 30th, 2015 at 02:28 AM.
1Undershaft no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2015, 03:48 AM   #37
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,655
Likes (Received): 2607

Awesome.

And now a friendly reminder to check the forums before starting a new thread:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1850780
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2015, 03:59 AM   #38
1Undershaft
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 50

Thanks. I searched 666, and nothing came up except for my reference to this in the 80 South St thread.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
1Undershaft no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2015, 04:20 AM   #39
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

*merged*
__________________
We are floating in space...

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2015, 04:59 AM   #40
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Well this just sounds awesome
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
666 5th ave., 666 fifth ave., midtown, nyc, zaha hadid

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 09:07 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