NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS - Page 135

P4R4DOCS · #**2681** Posted **Nov 30, 2014, 11:28 AM**

9 - 432 Park Ave just lookin like the long brick from tetris
24 -111 W. 57th Street is even more extreme

Really nice are 11, 27,29 - Hudson Yards with the highline around. beautiful.
The Highline was very nice in summer 14, as I have been there.

hunser · #**2682** Posted **Nov 30, 2014, 1:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

It's impressive in terms of rarity, but it's pretty counterproductive in terms of the original point of skyscrapers (fitting more floorspace into a given lot). When these buildings get so tall that over half of each floor is just columns and elevators then it stops making any sort of economic sense and is purely for showmanship. To some they might be impressive in terms of height, but to me they are just impressive in terms of wasted money. I think more reasonable tower shapes like 10 and 30 Hudson Yards are much more impressive than simply going for height with no regard to proportion or economics.

Wait, did you just say that New York builds those residential supertall for show? And not on demand / economics?

NYguy · #**2683** Posted **Nov 30, 2014, 1:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

It's impressive in terms of rarity, but it's pretty counterproductive in terms of the original point of skyscrapers (fitting more floorspace into a given lot).

I don't follow your logic. The exact reason these "sliver" towers are so tall is because of the small lots they are building on, with additional (or purchased) floor space. Sure, the towers don't have to be as tall, but there would be less floor space. Secondly, what further drives the height is the cost of purchasing and building on the land - those high units justify that expense. These towers are in fact pushing the idea of skyscrapers to its very limits. Some may see them as being too tall, but that's what it's all about.

JayPro · #**2684** Posted **Nov 30, 2014, 5:40 PM**

Just saying...but if the '(Du)Bai and the '(Shang)Hai---amongst others from the Fertile Crescent to the Sea of Japan---had been following the above logic all along, they wouldn't get laughed out of the room by us here and some of the more *sensible European metropolises.
The relevance of the above IMO to this topic is that we're doing it right; and the fact that international financeers will flock stateside in only bigger droves seems to prove that.
*Sensible vis a vis reading the appropriate market tea leaves and proceeding accordingly; my "Field of Dreams in Reverse": Come and They Will Build It.".

gramsjdg · #**2685** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 5:23 AM**

With foundation work now being done, can we assume the design is now frozen?

NYguy · #**2686** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 8:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

With foundation work now being done, can we assume the design is now frozen?

For the most part, we can assume so. Renders will be revealed in the coming months. It's possible, though probably not likely, for some minor changes. The top floors of 432 Park were altered while the tower was already rising into the sky, but you wouldn't notice it from the design. Still, tweaks can always be made, with the changes reflected in the filing with the DOB that will continue until construction is completed.

gramsjdg · #**2687** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 5:36 PM**

I guess the only question now is whether the 1490' number is the physical roof height or the parapet/curtain wall height...

NYguy · #**2688** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

I guess the only question now is whether the 1490' number is the physical roof height or the parapet/curtain wall height...

Hopefully the answer is sooner rather than later.

Latest permit...(ignore the 1,550 ft height)

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

PROVIDE UNDERGROUND PIPING IN PROPOSED NEW BUILDING

chris08876 · #**2689** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 4:49 PM**

Credit: 217 West 57th Street, photo by ILNY ; http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/12/cco...-december.html

NYguy · #**2690** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 6:13 PM**

^ Looks like excavation is leveling out. You can already feel a difference since these videos were taken...

• Video Link

Skyguy_7 · #**2691** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 7:23 PM**

^^Whoa, that excavator- top left corner. Pure American ingenuity.

NYguy · #**2692** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 9:21 PM**

The CTBUH has to get their numbers updated, but here's an idea how the tallest rankings here in the US will stand with Nordstrom and some of the others...

If you include towers that are proposed, or in site prep status...

Nordstrom moves to the top of the list of proposed and under construction projects in the US...

chris08876 · #**2693** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 10:28 PM**

^^^

Was playing around with the data over there. For structures 150m or greater that are proposed, demo, u/c, topped out and complete. This is what I found.

Note: Some are missing as stated by the CTBUH disclaimer but gives us a good idea.

============= Scroll ============>

We are clearly in an unprecedented time for skyscraper construction in NYC.

NYguy · #**2694** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

We are clearly in an unprecedented time for skyscraper construction in NYC.

And everyone can and should take it all in. Twenty years from now, we'll look back and remember when each and everyone of these babies grew out of the ground.

kpdrummer82 · #**2695** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 3:07 PM**

Does anyone have a proper updated render for this building...I still can't get an idea of what it's actually going to look like..

NYguy · #**2696** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpdrummer82

Does anyone have a proper updated render for this building...I still can't get an idea of what it's actually going to look like..

That's because renderings haven't been released. We're all waiting.

BrownTown · #**2697** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 11:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

Wait, did you just say that New York builds those residential supertall for show? And not on demand / economics?

Of course they are for show! They are a horribly inefficient use of resources. Just because billionaires have so much money that they can afford it doesn't change that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't follow your logic. The exact reason these "sliver" towers are so tall is because of the small lots they are building on, with additional (or purchased) floor space. Sure, the towers don't have to be as tall, but there would be less floor space. Secondly, what further drives the height is the cost of purchasing and building on the land - those high units justify that expense. These towers are in fact pushing the idea of skyscrapers to its very limits. Some may see them as being too tall, but that's what it's all about.

As the height of a building increases the available floorspace per floor decreases because more and more of it is being used for elevator shafts and structural supports (core and columns). It gets to the point where each additional floor you are adding is essentially having almost no increase in floor space because the in incremental increases are offset by the decreases in all the floors below it. What limits the height of a skyscraper isn't civil engineering challenges, it's logistics (how do you get people in and out without the whole thing being nothing but elevators). These ultra-luxury towers solve that by having so few tenants that they don't need very many elevators, but that means absurd prices for the few who do live there. It's getting to the point where future skyscrapers may well have the bottom 400ft be "stilts" to get them up into the skyline without having to have people from those floors clogging up the elevators for the mega-wealthy.

chris08876 · #**2698** Posted **Dec 4, 2014, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Of course they are for show! They are a horribly inefficient use of resources. Just because billionaires have so much money that they can afford it doesn't change that fact.

Its called Economics. The city builds based on supply and demand and prices are a function of this, and current property costs. Remember, these towers are for profit. All towers are. They aren't built without a good reason. Always has. Pick yourself up one of these books and try to comprehend...

Once that is finished, I can recommend a more advanced textbook. Common BrownTown, you're starting to sound like a NIMBY that doesn't understand how cities work.

Crawford · #**2699** Posted **Dec 4, 2014, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Of course they are for show! They are a horribly inefficient use of resources. Just because billionaires have so much money that they can afford it doesn't change that fact.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The towers going up in NYC are strictly based on market demand. It has nothing to do with "show"; in fact these buildings are very difficult to build, due to tough zoning, NIMBY opposition, absurd union rules and the nation's highest mansion and transfer taxes.

As for "efficient" the most efficient residence is the one most reflective of market demand. Obviously these buildings are being built as efficient as possible, because the developer is strictly motivated by profit. The relative success of the building determines the building's value, and benefit to the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

As the height of a building increases the available floorspace per floor decreases because more and more of it is being used for elevator shafts and structural supports (core and columns).

Gee, you came up with that all by yourself? Who knew that tall buildings had elevators, and elevator capacity was related to building height?

You forgot the little part about not all real estate being created equal. If a ground floor residece is X, A 90th floor residence overlooking Central Park will be sold for 5X or 10X. So obviously the math works out, unless the usable floorspace becomes absurdly tiny. If the math didn't work out, then developers wouldn't be building tall skinny towers, which are much more expensive to build than "regular" highrises.

BrownTown · #**2700** Posted **Dec 4, 2014, 5:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

The towers going up in NYC are strictly based on market demand. It has nothing to do with "show"; in fact these buildings are very difficult to build, due to tough zoning, NIMBY opposition, absurd union rules and the nation's highest mansion and transfer taxes.

It has EVERYTHING to do with show. The demand is driven by people who want a 1000ft high view so they can show off how rich they are!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

As for "efficient" the most efficient residence is the one most reflective of market demand. Obviously these buildings are being built as efficient as possible, because the developer is strictly motivated by profit. The relative success of the building determines the building's value, and benefit to the city.

That's a pretty odd way of defining "efficiency". If a billionaire wanted a solid gold toilet I'm sure someone would build one, but that wouldn't make it an efficient toilet. Efficiency means using resources to their maximum potential. These building are the exact opposite of that. They are extremely wasteful of resources and that is a fact whether or not someone can afford it or not. If you want to see tall buildings get built, that's great, but don't lie to yourself and pretend like they are anything other than giant phallic symbols for the ultra-wealthy.