New York City
Washington DC Metro
Northern New Jersey
open house planner
manhattan condo market index
submit your listings
Benefits of FREE account
Become an Insider
post your listings
Personally, I think the height of One57 is too high and has detracted from the Central Park South skyline.
THE skyline-altering battle over bragging rights and superlatives in Manhattan real estate will heat up soon as construction gets under way on the 95-story tower at Park Avenue and East 56th Street.
Just shy of 1,397 feet, 432 Park Avenue will be the city’s tallest apartment building when it is completed in a few years, soaring past its next-highest competitor, One57, by almost 400 feet. The apartments will be large, and very expensive, with an 8,255-square-foot six-bedroom penthouse on the 95th floor being listed for $82.55 million, according to the condominium’s offering plan.
As Macklowe is 75 years old, this is the biggest, tallest - &, sadly - probably the ONLY thing he can now erect.
Let the poor [no, not in the monetary sense] guy have his fun!
Give it a few decades, & it could end up looking very authentic...
All we have is bedrock and a grid. Only place to go is up. The more the better, the richer the better, come on down and place your bets. Buy a property in a city that used to be fun and adventurous, a city where people used to drink soda in cups as big as kiddy pools. You might not remember this but, it was once legal to have dance clubs in NYC. That right Kevin Bacon, we don't dance in this town any more. STFU, order bottle service and stand around and hope you look important.
But I digress...
Tall, sure, why not.
90th floor, what can you see unless you look down.
what is the maximum height in Columbia County?
way too predictable.
Why can't you just answer the simple questions columbiacounty?
I was discussing this issue with a friend recently. He asked if there is an optimum height for a building, after which you start to spend too much to get the energy to run the elevators, AC, and other building mechanics.
This is a good question and one for an architect or engineer. Is there a maximum desirable height for a building, after which it becomes too inefficient to operate it?
Architects have been fine-tuning those calculations ever since the steel frame made skyscrapers possible. It's all to do with rentable floor space ratios.
Elevator capacity is the overriding factor in limiting how high you can go. Wiring/plumbing/HVAC/structure don't eat up nearly as much floor space as height increases.
That's why buildings like the WTC, Sears Tower, etc. have sky lobbies. You can stack the multi-car local banks on top of each other, with big single cars making a fast run to their lobbies. You can also double-deck cars to make as much use of the dead shaft space as possible.
Then there's the size of the floor plate. The bigger the floor, the more efficient. If the market you're aiming at will support x square feet, and you divide x among too many floors, each floor falls below an efficiency threshold and the building isn't feasible.
There're lots of other factors, but those (i.e. money) are the top two.
All that goes by the board, though, if there're other than economic issues at play. E.g., the new One WTC's height was determined by emotion, statement-making, and so on.
That applies to office buildings. The numbers plugged into the calculations are different for residential development.
Very interesting, NWT, thanks.
NWT: Then there's the size of the floor plate. The bigger the floor, the more efficient. If the market you're aiming at will support x square feet, and you divide x among too many floors, each floor falls below an efficiency threshold and the building isn't feasible.
To, me the floor plate of One57 looks far too small for the height. The building is a blight on the skyline because of these distorted dimensions. Not to mention the over designed outside skin of the building.
Further, as a long time resident in NYC in multiple sized dwellings, I can't imagine living higher than one could reasonably walk down the stairs in an emergency. Living on the 95th floor, no matter how spectacular the views, is a dangerous place to live in an emergency. When the next blackout comes to the city -- and it will-- I think there might be a good deal of buyer regret in the city.
The difference between commercial and residential is it's much easier to charge a high enough price to justify the higher floors when the unit goes residential. But even in residential the highest buildings must be in key locations with views. One 57 boasts central Park and the new building on Park Avenue will undoubtedly do the same for units facing the park, but at 90 floors up you probably see clouds and air more than trees.
They all have diesel generators to run the elevators and emergency lighting during a blackout. I guess the people to whom these places appeal have other houses where they can see trees when they want to.
There was a story somewhere -- TRD or NYT -- that a buyer was put off from One57 because there weren't enough elevators (three?) to service the top floors, and so it'd be a mess for years with contractor traffic as buyers renovated. You can see why Extell might skimp, as an additional elevator shaft is maybe 100 ft² for each of however many floors, all of which space comes from the buildable ft² and can't be sold.
Take a look at the plans for the Gehry thing downtown: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2011101300190002
Only 76 floors, and the floors are relatively big at about 10,600 ft², but still huge masses of concrete, especially around the core, to support it all and prevent too much swaying.
That has many small apartments, therefore lots of elevator traffic, so there're five elevators for 1-38 and another five for the top half, plus one for freight. That's lots of ft² for the rents to cover.
The Gehry plans also tell you just how ordinary a building it is. The skin draped over it is the gimmick -- something, anything -- it needed to get the punters to pay x% more for their cells and make the project feasible.
>They all have diesel generators to run the elevators and emergency lighting during a blackout.
Don't challenge apt23's visions of doom and gloom. Always look on the dark side.
Looking out of apartment windows 70 stories high sounds terrifying and kind of visually off putting to me. In an office i dont think i care as much. But out of my kitchen window to look at clouds or experience a storm seems not very appealing. Doesnt much matter hough since i doubt i will ever have to actually consider this. If i had millions to spend i dont think is is how i would do it though.
but you are afraid to cross 14th Street. Why would the 70th floor be ok in an office but not in an apartment? Experiencing a storm when standing by the stove is more frightening than when standing by the photocopier? Unbelievable
I'm with you, Kyle.
Someone wrote a few years ago about how "static" the view from his high-rise apartment was, versus the "dynamic" view from his old low-rise. He said regardless of the day or time, the view was so high up that it essentially never changed, except for light and seasons. Being on the fifth floor, however, the view was an ever-changing kaleidoscope of traffic, pedestrians, wildlife, etc.
Personally, I don't like living above the 11th floor (the highest reach of a fire engine ladder). Optimally, I like the fifth floor (treetop height). I'm not thrilled with being in high places. I could work in a high-rise office, but I could never *live* -- and be fully at ease -- in a high-rise apartment. If I had millions to spend, it would be in a townhouse. With a garage. And a swimming pool.
You guys would hate this apt http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/697930-condo-150-west-56th-street-midtown-new-york
BTW I have an 8th floor apt with great light and open views so I agree with the above.
>Someone wrote a few years ago about how "static" the view from his high-rise apartment was, versus the "dynamic" view from his old low-rise. He said regardless of the day or time, the view was so high up that it essentially never changed, except for light and seasons.
One person wrote something a few years ago, and that's your definitive opinion on the subject.
In my opinion, optimal height depends on the neighboring buildings. You want to easily clear them. If you have a view of central park, you need to be at least 7 floors to easily clear the tree tops. 20 th floor or so gives you a very good view. On 56 th street, depending on what is between you and the park, you may need to be on a higher floor.
Can a building be too tall?So long as safety and other environmental factors are have been considered, the sky is the limit
I think that the new view at the sheep meadow is pretty spectacular and will no doubt get better as taller and grander building ring the park. Agree with others, not for me but really does look cool.
A building can be, as Ryan_M and ieb just pointed out.
Not everybody will want to live up that high.
I really like the view from 160 West 66th street, 56th floor and also a bit higher up.
Great backdrop for parties.
Maybe anything over, let's say 65-70 floors up is overkill.
On a cloudy day in Manhattan, with a low cloud-ceiling, you can't see anything even 20 stories up.
I've been in a great apt. in the Sears Tower, also on the 50+ floor.
The view across the lake as the sun went down was beautiful.
There was a deep violet glow on the horizon.