NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS

[NYguy]

JULY 9, 2018


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.

[TonyL]

The second setback is now visible. It begins the floor above the two mechanical floors.

[NYguy]

Yeah, it's getting up there, and the real fun of the setbacks is starting to kick in.


JULY 10, 2018


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.

[TechTalkGuy]

I still don’t see that dreadful shadow!
This is photo evidence that shadows from skyscrapers don’t exist.
This tower is going to look amazing!
So thin & tall, it’s an engineering marvel.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

I still don’t see that dreadful shadow!
This is photo evidence that shadows from skyscrapers don’t exist.

Shadows from skyscrapers exists, but so do shadows from trees, most of where the shadow in the park will come from. And on these hot summer days, it is most welcome shadow.




Genevieve Traczyk

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

I still don’t see that dreadful shadow!
This is photo evidence that shadows from skyscrapers don’t exist.

What I am referring to are the legal excuses that bully developers into shortening the height of their respective skyscrapers in a compromise that benefits no one.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

I still don’t see that dreadful shadow!
This is photo evidence that shadows from skyscrapers don’t exist.
This tower is going to look amazing!
So thin & tall, it’s an engineering marvel.

Obviously the shadows are there when the sun is at a certain angle. You can't use that photo as evidence that shadows don't exist. I don't care about them, but certain people do because of they dislike being in the shade. The excuse that "shade is good" doesn't fly for many people who like the sun. In Winter for example, the sun is warmer than being in the shade and preferable to a dark shady walk in the park. Also in winter the trees don't provide shade so the buildings are more intrusive.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Obviously the shadows are there when the sun is at a certain angle. You can't use that photo as evidence that shadows don't exist. I don't care about them, but certain people do because of they dislike being in the shade.

People that don't like being in the shade won't be in that park anyway. But for the minimal time of the day that a shadow from any of these skyscrapers would cross their path in the park, I think they could avoid it regardless.



https://www.instagram.com/p/BlEfacDn...=williambutler

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

People that don't like being in the shade won't be in that park anyway. But for the minimal time of the day that a shadow from any of these skyscrapers would cross their path in the park, I think they could avoid it ragardless.

EXACTLY!
In the winter, you’re in the shade walking through Wall Street.
In the summer; as you can see from NYguy’s photos, people enjoy sitting on the great lawn.

Show me a skyscraper shadow from Central Park!

[GertElim]

Enough with the shadows.

I like the progress of this tower, can anyone put the current height in one of those height status images?

[NOPA]

If shadows over Central Park are such a problem then why haven’t we cut down all the trees?

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by NOPA

If shadows over Central Park are such a problem then why haven’t we cut down all the trees?

Throughout the years here on S.S.P., many proposed skyscrapers have been denied due to being too tall. The excuse was always the "shadow" would violate a nearby park & harm wildlife.

Many developers were bullied into shortening the height of their proposed skyscrapers to earn approval.

Air Rights is another method used to control the development of megatall skyscrapers in NYC.

111 W. 57th looks taller due to being very narrow.
It’s a risky engineering feat to develop.

[eltodesukane]

z

[chris08876]

Credit: craigsbeds

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Air Rights is another method used to control the development of megatall skyscrapers in NYC.

I can't wait until they get rid or at least dramatically reduce the fabricated air rights system for certain parts of the island. Its nothing more than a parameter of zoning.

Developers want to build many more units because it the market conditions are right, which right now they are, they will sell. Units in the range of 500k to 1.5 mil are hot hot hot!

The city could in theory build much taller and denser. Getting rid of air rights is one way of making this happen.

Yet again, what would an untamed NYC look like? One that is a sandbox for developers ambitions and dreams?

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

I don't like those small footprint tall towers.
Wider well-designed building groups contribute better to the city (like Rockefeller Center, Hudson Yards, ..).

Keep in mind that while this is a slender, it has the most extreme aspect-ratio of any tower that has ever been built. Its not just any ordinary slender, but history in the making. A record breaker and one that looks so good that it may cause accidents from pedestrians looking up on it and crossing the street (my prediction).

[edale]

Personally, I hate this new crop of towers in Midtown. They are so out of scale with the rest of the built environment. Capitalistic excess, pure and simple. Just because you can build that high, doesn't mean you should. I much prefer the look of Central Park South area before 432 Park and Co. came along. Don't expect to find many who agree with me on Skyscraper Page forum- just sharing my opinion.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

Just because you can build that high, doesn't mean you should. I much prefer the look of Central Park South area before 432 Park and Co. came along. Don't expect to find many who agree with me on Skyscraper Page forum- just sharing my opinion.

Good for you, then, that NYC has like 50 corridors that look just like the old CPS corridor, the vast majority of them landmarked and unchangable.

Let us skyscraper fans have this new corridor of residential supertalls. 90% of the prime areas are already off-limits.

But if you don't like the scale, you're gonna be very disappointed in the coming years. With technology improvements, these types of towers make more and more financial sense. This is likely just the beginning.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

I don't like those small footprint tall towers.
Wider well-designed building groups contribute better to the city (like Rockefeller Center, Hudson Yards, ..).

This statement right there shows how little you know about cities. Developments like Rockefeller Center and Hudson Yards work only in small doses. If it were up to what you like, then having tens or hundreds of Rockefeller Centers and Hudson Yards all over the city would totally render all of them unremarkable.

And the reason those type of large footprint developments work is because the areas surrounding them are small, finegrain type blocks, which makes up the bulk of the city. If the whole city was developed like you wanted, with large footprints, NYC would turn into something like a giant Corbusian Brasilia.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

I don't like those small footprint tall towers.
Wider well-designed building groups contribute better to the city (like Rockefeller Center, Hudson Yards, ..).

That makes no sense.

Originally Posted by edale

Personally, I hate this new crop of towers in Midtown. They are so out of scale with the rest of the built environment.

Skyscrapers, by their nature, are just that. The Empire State has stood for years - without equal - as the epitome of skyscraper greatness. The new towers in Midtown at least have nearby towers of similar scale - hardly out of scale in context. But yes, supertall towers by their nature in most places will dominate.

[TechTalkGuy]

I’d suggest anyone who doesn’t like skyscrapers to spend their quality time on Staten Island.

Right now, Manhattan is so dense with miles of skyscrapers in all directions, adding super-slim towers is the way to go that guarantees smiles all around.