[JayPro]

It would seem that the discussion concerning this tower is letting fly with some interesting details, indeed...and, admittedly, rather to my chagrin and dismay.
A post made by a forumer named JamesDL reads as follows (BTW former SSP colleague Robert Walpole is a frequent participant in the thread where the post below is found):

Hi all,
Yes, kind of (Edit: In answer to a forumer's question as to wether he worked for either Extell or the architect of record/GC..whatever that means.) I work for a company providing consulting and insurance services for Extell Development Company. Renderings were shown to a colleague of mine who then presented me the facts.
The tower will have a curvy shape, with some setbacks. Cladding will mimic the green of Central Park. Also, the structure as a whole will be topped off by a magnificent crown which will be illuminated at night.
You won't be disappointed.
I just realized that 225 West 57th Street will be 3 feet taller than the Empire State Building. I think that's a big step forward and we should be thankful.
And btw, the building's name has not been chosen yet.
Regards,
James

Apparently to substantiate this, it seems that none other than the Gray Lady herself, aka the New York Times, released an article back in June:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/re...gTFsI13vHl2yxQ

A salient snippet:

“Building tall is not about bragging rights,” he said recently, during a conversation in the nondescript conference room of his offices on Third Avenue; he was wearing slacks and a mock turtleneck. “What drives the building is design, the views, the economics.” He built One57 to its full height “because we couldn’t get in all the air rights any other way — once you have it, the ability to build it, I didn’t want to just throw it away.”
Still, deciding a building’s height is a judgment call, and “there have been times that I had air rights but I didn’t end up using them,” he said. Extreme height adds time and uncertainty to a project, as well as construction costs. One57, for instance, was waylaid when Hurricane Sandy snapped off a crane boom and left it dangling far above the street. Mr. Barnett is weighing these considerations for his Nordstrom property, he said, and said he may choose to forego the full 1,550 feet."

(NB: As for the above quote, it seems to have been debated somewhat at length on this thread; but I'm not sure as I've been attending to family matters lately.)

Yet another article from an e-pub called Iconeye.com, entitled "Towering Ambition", reads thus:

"The title of the world’s highest has moved to the eastern hemisphere, where it appears it will remain for some time. The US could once finance high-rise marvels that were symbols of its economic and political ambition and success; as both demonstrations of power and the solution to the densification of urban centres. But could the gargantuan architectural gestures of the east make an re-appearance in the post 9/11 west?
Smith is unsure, but sees an opportunity in two cities: “London and New York, because they are such international cities, could build towers of this size. There are deep pockets that want to be in those locations if you have the right site,” he says. “In New York, there is a re-emergence of super-tall towers, but they have a very small footplate. There is one we are working on that is 1,200ft (366m). (Editor's emphasis)"

So perhaps this is true. We shall see......