NEW YORK | One57 (Carnegie 57) | 1,005 FT | 75 FLOORS

[ThatOneGuy]

^^ How ironic, 250 W 55th is a so called 'cheap glass box" and it gives its area a huge amount of contrast, from the ugly brown that was there...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by NYCLuver

September 12th, 2012

Great photos.



hanswendland

[detroitmetro101]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

The USA has literally thousands upon thousands of boring and ugly postmo skyscrapers. Unless they can successfully integrate neo-art deco/gothic elements, (which very few do) they make the place look brown and mucky.

Just look at the area around 250W55th street. It was hideous and brown, and with that glassy building, it gave a nice, modern contrast. NY is a city of many different styles, and contrast is key to keeping it interesting.

One57 does a great job at this.

as oppose to the suburban style, prefabricated apartments and condos in shanghai and hong kong... those "hideous and brown" buildings are what gave new york the density to build such (glass) skyscrapers. not only that, its those very buildings that give nyc the constrast in architecture, which no other city can match, imo. this is by no means a opposition to one 57, in fact its about time nyc had a pro-skyscraper administration. as long as the demand is there, continuing approval and construction of these projects is vital for nyc's economy and skyline. one of the most amazing things about nyc is to see a five floor brown stone shop, with a twenty, thirty, or forty floor office building next to it, its nyc at its best. you can then imagine that five floor shop being replaced, someday, by a eighty or ninety floor thin office or apartment; not even tokyo or hong kong can claim such contrast, which why nyc's skyline and other "usa" skylines are so unique and exemplary. you cant/shouldnt, tear down a city, to build a city. you should build on top of what you already have, trust me im from detroit, i know. so i guess at the end we agree, just from different perspectives.

[jddar]

Gosh, I used to think the three sisters behind this beautiful tower were really tall.

This building will be gorgeous – parts of it are already.

[NYguy]

CVerwaal

[Guiltyspark]

Does anyone still think this tower is not tall enough? I offer now now as the time to bring that up...

But seriously, One57 dominates the neighborhood. To me it is both extremely modern and evocative of the set-back architecture that New York is famous for.

[Don098]

I love this building so much, and I agree that a few hundred feet more in height would make it more prominent, I'm fine with this being a 1,004 footer. It still has a presence.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Does anyone still think this tower is not tall enough? I offer now now as the time to bring that up...

I think it's fine, but I would prefer if it were a couple hundred feet taller.

The thing is, it will be dwarfed by nearby towers in the coming years. It's still a nice height, though.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by detroitmetro101

as oppose to the suburban style, prefabricated apartments and condos in shanghai and hong kong... those "hideous and brown" buildings are what gave new york the density to build such (glass) skyscrapers. not only that, its those very buildings that give nyc the constrast in architecture, which no other city can match, imo. this is by no means a opposition to one 57, in fact its about time nyc had a pro-skyscraper administration. as long as the demand is there, continuing approval and construction of these projects is vital for nyc's economy and skyline. one of the most amazing things about nyc is to see a five floor brown stone shop, with a twenty, thirty, or forty floor office building next to it, its nyc at its best. you can then imagine that five floor shop being replaced, someday, by a eighty or ninety floor thin office or apartment; not even tokyo or hong kong can claim such contrast, which why nyc's skyline and other "usa" skylines are so unique and exemplary. you cant/shouldnt, tear down a city, to build a city. you should build on top of what you already have, trust me im from detroit, i know. so i guess at the end we agree, just from different perspectives.

Agreed. Couldn't said it better myself.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by jddar

Gosh, I used to think the three sisters behind this beautiful tower were really tall...

Speaking of which... Is the New York schist (bedrock) particularly perfect for building so tall in this very spot, with three previous towers all in a row. For no other reason can I imagine the owners at Carnegie Hall Tower and Metropolitan Tower would put up with having their multi-million dollar views obstructed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Speaking of which... Is the New York schist (bedrock) particularly perfect for building so tall in this very spot, with three previous towers all in a row. For no other reason can I imagine the owners at Carnegie Hall Tower and Metropolitan Tower would put up with having their multi-million dollar views obstructed.

These buildings are tall because they're trying to take advantage of Central Park views. It has nothing to do with bedrock (which isn't really an issue anywhere in Manhattan).

Yes, some people will have their views obstructed, but that's life in an urban area. When those buildings were built, they obstructed someone else's views too.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These buildings are tall because they're trying to take advantage of Central Park views. It has nothing to do with bedrock (which isn't really an issue anywhere in Manhattan).

Yes, some people will have their views obstructed, but that's life in an urban area. When those buildings were built, they obstructed someone else's views too.

Ummmm... The depth below the surface of the bedrock is a HUGE deal in Manhattan. Hence nothing of note in the skyscraper department from Tribeca to North of 30th Street.

Being from a metropolitan area myself, with a population over 5 million and living downtown most of my life, I am familiar with views being blocked and life in an Urban area. However, the close proximity of these four very tall towers had me curious about the reason. Perhaps someone else would know the answer to my question... Say, someone actually familiar with New York's geologiocal substrates?

[detroitmetro101]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These buildings are tall because they're trying to take advantage of Central Park views. It has nothing to do with bedrock (which isn't really an issue anywhere in Manhattan).

Yes, some people will have their views obstructed, but that's life in an urban area. When those buildings were built, they obstructed someone else's views too.

often some people cite the bedrock as a reason why there are skyscrapers in midtown and downtown, and not inbetween or uptown. this might have been true 100 years ago, but i agree with you, i dont think it has anything to do with it today. if they can build skyscrapers in new orleans, miami, dubai... they can certainly do it anywhere in manhattan, transportation access is more, if not the biggest factor, of course landmarks and parks too. so often personal interests prevail over an equal approach. i liked the response the city council gave to the owners of the empire state building when the hudson yards were in proposal, basically denying their claim that empire state building is special and that the sorrounding area should be protected from other skyscrapers, the city council called bs on that one, hopefully now they can resume. i think the same argument was made against one57, and that was rejected. so as far as i know, being an outsider, i love this current nyc administration and their skyscraper policy.

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Ummmm... The depth below the surface of the bedrock is a HUGE deal in Manhattan. Hence nothing of note in the skyscraper department from Tribeca to North of 30th Street.

Being from a metropolitan area myself, with a population over 5 million and living downtown most of my life, I am familiar with views being blocked and life in an Urban area. However, the close proximity of these four very tall towers had me curious about the reason. Perhaps someone else would know the answer to my question... Say, someone actually familiar with New York's geologiocal substrates?

This bedrock idea is sort of an architectural urban legend. This has been dealt with in other threads on the webpage.

[RoldanTTLB]

The reason all these tall buildings are together is the same reason there aren't tall buildings in between: zoning. All of Manhattan south of about 96th st is prime real estate, and given the opportunity, developers would build about as much as they could as fast as they could. Zoning is the same reason we have all those terrible setback hotels from about 23rd st to 50th st or so. I could be used to prevent that as well. The hotels will still be profitable.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Ummmm... The depth below the surface of the bedrock is a HUGE deal in Manhattan. Hence nothing of note in the skyscraper department from Tribeca to North of 30th Street.

Being from a metropolitan area myself, with a population over 5 million and living downtown most of my life, I am familiar with views being blocked and life in an Urban area. However, the close proximity of these four very tall towers had me curious about the reason. Perhaps someone else would know the answer to my question... Say, someone actually familiar with New York's geologiocal substrates?

As several others have pointed out, the theory that the proximity of bedrock to the surface had anything to do with forming Manhattan's two skylines is completely false. Here's a published paper written by the Fordham Department of Economics debunking that theory. I don't want to derail this thread anymore, so I'll just say read that paper, because the bedrock theory is 100% false.

Again, as others have noted, this towers location has everything to do with Central Park views, and again, literally nothing to do with bedrock.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Again, as others have noted, this towers location has everything to do with Central Park views, and again, literally nothing to do with bedrock.

More fun with bedrock here...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197150


This will be a stunning tower, and the prices Gary Barnett is getting for the units justify the buiding. Location has a lot to do with it, but not in terms of bedrock.



http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/0...obably_not.php

Is This a Legit Listing for $55M at One57? (Probably Not)




September 12, 2012
by Sara Polsky

An eagle-eyed Curbed tipster passed along this Zillow listing for a 4BR, 4BA apartment at One57, asking a whopping $55 million.
We've never seen a public listing for the building— which has been on the market since December—so this is pretty unlikely to
be a legitimate listing. Still, it's kinda fun to watch the set-to-music virtual tour.

Seen here...
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15...20302323_zpid/




Another look at some renderings..

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Another look at some renderings..

Look at the balance that One57 adds to the skyline!

[599GTO]

Indoors voice please.

[kznyc2k]

Zipping in to Hoboken on I-95 this past Friday: