NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS - Page 148

babybackribs2314 · #**2941** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 10:27 PM**

It's already almost final. Nothing has changed.

Onn · #**2942** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

It's already almost final. Nothing has changed.

The difference between final and almost final are two different things.

chris08876 · #**2943** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 2:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

The difference between final and almost final are two different things.

He's been saying its the same design for a while now, and he tends to be right. Remember, he has access to insider stuff and developers.

What we will see is slight and extremely mild changes, but nothing dramatic. Developers usually add to the finalized plan some little things, but nothing to change the identity of the tower that we have seen.

Zapatan · #**2944** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 2:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

He's been saying its the same design for a while now, and he tends to be right. Remember, he has access to insider stuff and developers.

What we will see is slight and extremely mild changes, but nothing dramatic. Developers usually add to the finalized plan some little things, but nothing to change the identity of the tower that we have seen.

True, and that's not a bad thing considering it's a pretty cool looking building with immense (record breaking) height for this side of the world in the roof category.

babybackribs2314 · #**2945** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 7:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

He's been saying its the same design for a while now, and he tends to be right. Remember, he has access to insider stuff and developers.

What we will see is slight and extremely mild changes, but nothing dramatic. Developers usually add to the finalized plan some little things, but nothing to change the identity of the tower that we have seen.

This post is 100% correct!

baseball1992 · #**2946** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

This post is 100% correct!

Is the height still the same to the top of the parapet?(1479ft)

Zapatan · #**2947** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball1992

Is the height still the same to the top of the parapet?(1479ft)

I think the most recent DOB was 1490' to either main roof or parapet and another was filed for 1550' but that was probably outdated.

NYguy · #**2948** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:40 PM**

^ The other number wasn't a new filing, but an application based on the original permit, which was at the 1,550 ft figure.

As far as the design goes, people will just have to accept that there will be no changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

I toured AS+GG's Chicago office on Saturday and they were much more elusive with this project than they were last year. No models or drawings anywhere to be found. I did speak to an architect who told us to look for an official rendering release early first quarter, 2015.

When remarking on the expected height, he told me not to anticipate any change; that there is an unwritten gentleman's agreement, of all firms, not to exceed Freedom Tower's mark at 1776' [+5']

That being said, we still haven't seen any detailed renderings. That will go a long way towards shaping opinions on this tower. But, as always, Extell is playing it close.

Onn · #**2949** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

He's been saying its the same design for a while now, and he tends to be right. Remember, he has access to insider stuff and developers.

What we will see is slight and extremely mild changes, but nothing dramatic. Developers usually add to the finalized plan some little things, but nothing to change the identity of the tower that we have seen.

Then why don't they release the design? That's what I don't understand. A roof height of 1,490 feet could indeed putting the tower in the 1,500-1,550 foot parpet range. Part of the reason the Burj Khalifa's full design wasn't released until the building neared completion was to protect its true height.

NYguy · #**2950** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Then why don't they release the design? That's what I don't understand. A roof height of 1,490 feet could indeed putting the tower in the 1,500-1,550 foot parpet range. Part of the reason the Burj Khalifa's full design wasn't released until the building neared completion was to protect its true height.

Extell will release it when they are ready. More than any other developer in the city, they have been known to keep things close. For most proposals you see multiple renders floating around before actual work gets going in the ground, but for Extell it tends to be the other way.

We have a building under construction that by some definitions would be the tallest in the country, yet no official renderings have been released. Not one.

Onn · #**2951** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Extell will release it when they are ready. More than any other developer in the city, they have been known to keep things close. For most proposals you see multiple renders floating around before actual work gets going in the ground, but for Extell it tends to be the other way.

We have a building under construction that by some definitions would be the tallest in the country, yet no official renderings have been released. Not one.

I don't know, I just feel like there's still something to be said about keeping the cards in the deck. Barnett likes to play with us.

Zapatan · #**2952** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ The other number wasn't a new filing, but an application based on the original permit, which was at the 1,550 ft figure.

Then I suspect the final design will probably be the exact same height. ~1480 parapet is what we'll get.

ILNY · #**2953** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

I don't know, I just feel like there's still something to be said about keeping the cards in the deck. Barnett likes to play with us.

Yeah, I see a contradiction here. From one side Barnett is very secretive and would not release the rendering but on another it allows it to leak to NY Yimby?

NYguy · #**2954** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY

Yeah, I see a contradiction here. From one side Barnett is very secretive and would not release the rendering but on another it allows it to leak to NY Yimby?

A leak is a leak, but a drawing is very different from a rendering. I remember when it was leaked that Barnett was building a 1,000 ft tower on 57th (One57), but no design element was revealed. However, the DOB always has drawings, which have to be submitted. I haven't been by the site in a couple of weeks, but I'm always looking for even a drawing on the boards. It was revealed that a complaint was filed in order to get Extell to provide even that preliminary rendering it has of 250 South St on that site, which is required by the DOB. And that's not even as far along as this.

Frankly, when it comes to that, I'm with the NIMBYs. Put something up already.

chris08876 · #**2955** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Then why don't they release the design? That's what I don't understand. A roof height of 1,490 feet could indeed putting the tower in the 1,500-1,550 foot parpet range. Part of the reason the Burj Khalifa's full design wasn't released until the building neared completion was to protect its true height.

Releasing a rendering prematurely allows the developer to be scrutinized even more and this could be a risk, often that is calculated. Then theres a ton of paperwork to be done if the design changes and lets say applications are filed prematurely for a concept that won't necessarily be 99% of what the final product is.

Also, more of a prestige and perfectionist complex which is good for sales. Given the clients that they are dealing with, presentation and image is key. A prototype that in the building process would be considered alpha is not acceptable. Better to release them down the line when its set in stone what the design will be. Then, they can tweak it slightly, but not enough to disappoint prospective buyers.

Keep in mind that the renderings that we often see have been around for a while now. Shown to prospective buyers in sales office behind closed doors to keep its exclusivity and way before the public see's it.

Lastly, competition. A sub-bar design can steal buyers who may be looking to buy such units. With an influx of uber-luxury supertalls and skyscrapers, every sale matters given the low units and high risk even in a market that supports it. Its still risky to build these keep in mind. A sudden economic downturn could turn the whole supertall bonanza into a bust.

This of course varies for developers, but you tend to see it more from the top-tier architects/builders.

Zapatan · #**2956** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 10:00 PM**

Weren't the renderings pretty much released already? I mean that's what the building will more or less look like no?

chris08876 · #**2957** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 10:04 PM**

Yup will look the same.

I think people are expecting some dramatic change where it shoots close to 2000 feet, but its not happening.

Also with certain people having access to info, this is sometimes done by contract where they vow to not give any info away or suffer penalties or lawsuits if they do. Possibly hints, but no actual info. This varies based on who it is, and where the source comes from.

Zapatan · #**2958** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Yup will look the same.

I think people are expecting some dramatic change where it shoots close to 2000 feet, but its not happening.

Also with certain people having access to info, this is sometimes done by contract where they vow to not give any info away or suffer penalties or lawsuits if they do. Possibly hints, but no actual info. This varies based on who it is, and where the source comes from.

I'm definitely not expecting it to hit 2000 feet but it's hard to know if the height is really finalized. With Steinway next door rising to 1424 they might want to bump it up a little to stand out, maybe?

I guess "even" at 1480 + spire it'll stand out plenty anyway.

chris08876 · #**2959** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 11:46 PM**

If they could just add an extension, a stick of wood, something to make it taller than 1776, I'd be happy.

But to be honest, given the great fortune of this boom, being the 2nd tallest shouldn''t even phase us.

Whats going to be amazing is the photography that the boom will give us when more than 8 supertalls are rising at the same time.

Zapatan · #**2960** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

If they could just add an extension, a stick of wood, something to make it taller than 1776, I'd be happy.

But to be honest, given the great fortune of this boom, being the 2nd tallest shouldn''t even phase us.

Whats going to be amazing is the photography that the boom will give us when more than 8 supertalls are rising at the same time.

It is pretty crazy when you think about it.