NEW YORK | One57 (Carnegie 57) | 1,005 FT | 75 FLOORS - Page 76

Roadcruiser1 · #**1501** Posted **Oct 3, 2011, 10:36 PM**

Anywhere between Mid to Late 2012 since this building is going to open up at 2013.

RobertWalpole · #**1502** Posted **Oct 4, 2011, 3:34 AM**

PUSSY WILLOWhttp://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/Ceva321on Flickr

This tower will look quite thin from the east.

THE BIG APPLE · #**1503** Posted **Oct 4, 2011, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

PUSSY WILLOWhttp://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/Ceva321on Flickr

This tower will look quite thin from the east.

no actually it'll look huge from the east. It only looks thin now because the western part of the tower (or what i like to call the main tower) isnt high enough.

cityenthusiast · #**1504** Posted **Oct 4, 2011, 11:12 PM**

i cant wait for the cladding..... does anyone have any idea when theyll start the cladding?

THE BIG APPLE · #**1505** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 12:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityenthusiast

i cant wait for the cladding..... does anyone have any idea when theyll start the cladding?

very soon maybe later this month or next month

Otie · #**1506** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

no actually it'll look huge from the east. It only looks thin now because the western part of the tower (or what i like to call the main tower) isnt high enough.

Robert is right, it'll look thin from that angle.

THE BIG APPLE · #**1507** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 11:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otie

Robert is right, it'll look thin from that angle.

you call this thin and this is the vantage point from 5th Ave

this tower will be a monster from street level, but not that much from the air.

Otie · #**1508** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 12:47 AM**

^The model you're using is wrong (model by scalziand), as well as the angle is pretty much different than the one on the photo. Also the tower rises uniformly, the western or main part of the tower is high enough, though is not visible in the photo, again, due to the angle.

Brian Dino Vabec · #**1509** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 8:55 AM**

Dan Burnett, October 5th..

THE BIG APPLE · #**1510** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otie

^The model you're using is wrong (model by scalziand), as well as the angle is pretty much different than the one on the photo. Also the tower rises uniformly, the western or main part of the tower is high enough, though is not visible in the photo, again, due to the angle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

no actually it'll look huge from the east. It only looks thin now because the western part of the tower (or what i like to call the main tower) isnt high enough.

That's what I said. The model is inaccurate, but close enough. The angle is different, but is farther away and it still looks big. So if viewed from close up it'll be a monster. THE WESTERN (or main tower) isn't high enough, and thats why it looks thin. Plus the eastern part of the tower has setbacks and the western part rises straight up.

nycdagreatest · #**1511** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 3:41 PM**

Thanks for the update Dino

... 32nd floor; I believe that puts it over 400 feet

giantSwan · #**1512** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 5:21 PM**

Please excuse my lack of understanding construction/process/etc....but I would have thought a building of this size would be using steel in the construction process? this looks like it's being build entirely of concrete?

Can anyone explain?

THE BIG APPLE · #**1513** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by giantSwan

Please excuse my lack of understanding construction/process/etc....but I would have thought a building of this size would be using steel in the construction process? this looks like it's being build entirely of concrete?

Can anyone explain?

It's an all concrete building and it'll be the tallest all concrete building in the city once it's completed. Concrete isn't the most used material when building residental buildings, but it does have benefits. It virtually gives the building protection from fire etc. The Trump Tower in Chicago was also built with concrete for the very same reason.

Brian Dino Vabec · #**1514** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by giantSwan

Please excuse my lack of understanding construction/process/etc....but I would have thought a building of this size would be using steel in the construction process? this looks like it's being build entirely of concrete?

Can anyone explain?

It's simple logic..Office buildings are mostly built from steel and residential from concrete..There's a lot of reasons why, but as most important and most logic, I would pick that concrete is sound and fire proof..

LeftCoaster · #**1515** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 6:44 PM**

Most of the reason has to do with floorplates.

Steel construction is more expensive but allows for far more open floors, lacking the large concrete columns found in CIP structures. Office tenants place a huge value on open unobstructed floors and are often willing to pay extra for the luxury of steel buildings.

Residential as a market tends to be less picky about such things so often concrete is used to save on costs.

As well office layouts change frequently with new tenants making cooncrete columns and walls more obtrusive, whereas residential floors are often static once they are built, making the flexible floorplan advantage of steel less valuable.

hunser · #**1516** Posted **Oct 7, 2011, 6:03 PM**

all picy by kdotcarter

animatedmartian · #**1517** Posted **Oct 7, 2011, 6:22 PM**

For as thin as this tower is, it still looks as huge as an office tower.

NYguy · #**1518** Posted **Oct 7, 2011, 7:54 PM**

From the photos, it's about to make its park debut...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/re...er-i-hear.html
Is That a Bulldozer I Hear?

The surface of Metropolitan Tower reflects the construction of an even taller building, the 90-story One57, across the street.

By VIVIAN S. TOY
October 6, 2011

Quote:

...Ms. Fishman recently represented the owner of a 50th-floor apartment at Metropolitan Tower, at 146 West 57th Street, which is across the street from One57, a 90-story residential building and hotel being erected by the Extell Corporation. One57 has risen above 25 stories, but even earlier in the year, when Ms. Fishman was showing her listing, there was enough of a framework to go by. She could inform potential buyers that One57 would not change the apartment’s primary view of Central Park, which is to the northeast, because the Metropolitan’s upper floors are in a triangular tower and do not directly face One57.

There is one angle of the park view, however, that One57 will affect. Even though the direct view from the living room is to the northeast, she said, “people would still walk right up to the window, crane their head to the left and say, ‘But we’re going to lose the view of the park in this direction.” The loss of that stilted view of Central Park was enough to turn off many buyers, she said.

Ms. Fishman eventually found a buyer who understood that “walking right up to the window and turning your head to look at the park is not the way you’re going to live in the space, and the spectacular view you see when you walk in or are sitting at your couch is not going to change,” she said.

FMIII · #**1519** Posted **Oct 7, 2011, 8:47 PM**

Metropolitan tower's residents shouldn't complain about their future view. It will be awsome. Photographs will pay to take pictures from it.

Zerton · #**1520** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 2:47 AM**

Losing a view of the park can be a deal breaker for these towers.