NEW YORK | One57 (Carnegie 57) | 1,005 FT | 75 FLOORS - Page 55

RobertWalpole · #**1081** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay

That's Alwyn Court. And it's definitely one of the most ornate buildings in the city. It also has a nice atrium. But it used to be even more impressive. At some point it was remodeled and the original cornice was removed (the current cornice is from a restoration).

Petrossian occupies retail space at the corner so you can pick up $13K tins of caviar on your way back home from work.

GREAT screen-name!

JACKinBeantown · #**1082** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedy1979

The towers mass is further back.

Are you sure about that? I started scrolling through early pages of this thread looking for a model or drawing but gave up after 10 or 11 pages. Forgive my laziness. But according to the rendering by Sebastian K., it seems that the mass is right on top of those pillars.
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=82104

Lecom · #**1083** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycdagreatest

Right now the skyscraper is at its Waterview Tower stage: even if all the funds magically dry up and construction stops altogether, at least we got enough stuff built to complete a nice contextual streetwall.

speedy1979 · #**1084** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

Are you sure about that? I started scrolling through early pages of this thread looking for a model or drawing but gave up after 10 or 11 pages. Forgive my laziness. But according to the rendering by Sebastian K., it seems that the mass is right on top of those pillars.
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=82104

Well I can't be 100% sure. But something must have been changed since those renders were published. I find extremely difficult to believe those columns are meant to support a 1000 Footer.

But even if the mass of the tower is further back and those columns are only meant support the lobby they still appear vulnerable to truck bombs.

Lecom · #**1085** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 8:14 PM**

How are those columbs not believeable? I'd assume that the bulk of the building's weight is supported by the concrete core, with the perimeter columns playing a secondary supportive role. Of course they still have to be really thick and sturdy, but perhaps not as much as you think. Philly's Comcast Center, just 30 feet shorter, had a similar concrete core yet its perimeter columns were about as thick as the ones here, and those were just steel in a tower that rose straight up without any setbacks until the very top. The Twin Towers of the WTC, obviously much taller and rising without any setbacks at all, did not rely on a central supportive core at all, and though the perimeter columns were much more frequent and much skinnier, they were still strong enough to not only support both buildings for decades, but also to withstand strikes by Boeing planes flying at full speed. Long story short, I think you're underestimating the strength of the columns that you're seeing.

The building is vulnerable to truck bombs? Of course it is, but so are most buildings in the city, and the last time New York was successfully attacked by a car bomb was in the mid-1900's on Wall Street, more than a century ago. Overbuilding the WTC makes perfect sense, as the complex has proven to be a repeated target of terrorist attacks, but designing every other highrise in the city like the vertical concrete bunker of the United States Mission to the United Nation makes no sense.

NYC2ATX · #**1086** Posted **Mar 28, 2011, 1:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

Right now the skyscraper is at its Waterview Tower stage: even if all the funds magically dry up and construction stops altogether, at least we got enough stuff built to complete a nice contextual streetwall.

How hysterical is that, I thought EXACTLY the same thing about this having Waterview risk. That's going to become a term now. Watch.

scalziand · #**1087** Posted **Mar 28, 2011, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedy1979

Well I can't be 100% sure. But something must have been changed since those renders were published. I find extremely difficult to believe those columns are meant to support a 1000 Footer.

But even if the mass of the tower is further back and those columns are only meant support the lobby they still appear vulnerable to truck bombs.

Nothing changed. The SSP diagrams were based on the early renders released, which didn't show the street level view from w58th. The permits filed with the DOB though, do show a significant setback on the north side.

Lecom · #**1088** Posted **Mar 28, 2011, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Nothing changed. The SSP diagrams were based on the early renders released, which didn't show the street level view from w58th. The permits filed with the DOB though, do show a significant setback on the north side.

Here I come, the image source police. Post the image source plz

In either case, the image indicates nicely that street-facing columns will not support the bukl of the building, meaning they don't have to be supertall-thick.

scalziand · #**1089** Posted **Mar 28, 2011, 7:53 PM**

NYguy originally took the diagram from here. I modified it a bit to highlight the main shaft of the tower.

JACKinBeantown · #**1090** Posted **Mar 29, 2011, 3:47 AM**

Thanks for finding out the answer to my question, everyone.

nycdagreatest · #**1091** Posted **Apr 1, 2011, 1:28 AM**

11th floor is here...Here's pics I took today

Sorry I didn't take more it was a very ugly day and I didn't feel like staying in the rain long

NYguy · #**1092** Posted **Apr 1, 2011, 3:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycdagreatest

Sorry I didn't take more it was a very ugly day and I didn't feel like staying in the rain long

That's more than enough. It looks like it will begin to really break the streetwall in the next few weeks. And it already looks strong.

Jonovision · #**1093** Posted **Apr 1, 2011, 3:53 AM**

It's really picking up speed and will hopefully get even faster as the tower narrows. I wonder how long until it's visible from central park?

hunser · #**1094** Posted **Apr 1, 2011, 8:37 AM**

^^ the crane is already visible from some certain parts in central park.

Antares41 · #**1095** Posted **Apr 1, 2011, 9:01 PM**

Looking at those pictures, it amazes me how much wood/lumber is used in modern construction. Such an archaic material in some resprects, but, still soo essential.

Dac150 · #**1096** Posted **Apr 1, 2011, 10:15 PM**

Little by little this one is making itself known.

JACKinBeantown · #**1097** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 12:22 AM**

What's gonna happen with that crane, being so far away from the structure? Will it have long braces extending to support it?

RobertWalpole · #**1098** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 3:26 AM**

Do you guys remember the naysayers who kept saying that this beauty lacked financing and wasn't going to rise? I knew they were wrong and am quite happy about it! Bring on Torre Verre and The Drake!

NYguy · #**1099** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 5:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Do you guys remember the naysayers who kept saying that this beauty lacked financing and wasn't going to rise? I knew they were wrong and am quite happy about it! Bring on Torre Verre and The Drake!

Nobody ever said the building wouldn't rise. It was stated that Barnett didn't have full financing, and it isn't at all apparent yet that he does. The building was already under construction, and isn't at the point yet where we are guaranteed a full rise. Does the name "Waterview" ring a bell here? Look it up.

RobertWalpole · #**1100** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 1:02 PM**

This is not the Waterview. This building, like many rising in London, has Middle-Eastern financial backing.