Demolition? Maybe a week or 2 after. Just a guess. Construction won’t begin for at least 2 years. Or rather it won’t go skyward until 2 years after, they’re going to be working on the underground connection immediately.
2 Likes
My only wish is that this is completed a lot sooner than what is stated. Surely we don’t have to wait till 2030 for completion?
1 Like
Official completion? Yes. Practical completion? No. It’ll look completely done by mid to late 2027, maybe earlier. Also the underground levels will likely be done a year before that as they’ll be worked on first and they want as little disruption to transit as possible.
2 Likes
The meeting is now at 2:00 PM ET:
7 Likes
Building has been approved! Now on to demolition, then construction!
27 Likes
YESSS! 
5 Likes
Approved at what height? What final design?
1 Like
I’ve heard that the final height wasn’t up for approval, but it won’t be more than 1646 ft. And the design is being finalized
1 Like
It will be a real travesty if this building is value engineered.
2 Likes
Anything less than 1600 ft will be disappointing imo.
7 Likes
I highly doubt it will be anything less than 500 M, if for bragging rights alone. I also doubt they’ll value engineer it, but as always that remains to be seen.
2 Likes
In the United States people don’t know or care whatsoever about the metric system. This puts US development at a disadvantage to every other country. Look at how many skyscrapers that are between 950-983 feet. Also look at how many are between 450-491.
2 Likes
Developers don’t care about arbitrary height standards, it has nothing to do with the metric system, and to say it’s a disadvantage to EVERY OTHER COUNTRY is preposterous.
But I could be wrong…
7 Likes
Credit: Xing Lin on SSP
24 Likes
If you mean to imply that developers don’t care about reaching those height milestones you’re wrong, they’re human just the same as you and me. At least some of the time. They just happen to think about it more rationally, with financing, FAR, and etc in mind. But if they can get that extra height they’ll definitely do it. Which they can do with this building as they’ve been approved up to a height of 1,646 ft. Whether they’ll use the whole amount is up in the air.
Yeah I don’t know what the metric thing was about.
He didn’t say that, he said the exact opposite. He was saying the US was at a disadvantage to every other country, which btw I disagree with.
1 Like
My meaning is this:
The rest of the world uses the metric system. The global standard for high-rises and skyscrapers is that buildings over 150 meters or 492 feet are considered skyscrapers. Buildings over 300 meters or 984 feet are super talls, and over 600 meters are mega talls. The CTBUH is perhaps the foremost authority on city rankings as a skyscraper database, and the CTBUH uses the metric system definitions for buildings. You can check buildings in Asia, and many of them are specifically designed to hit one of these thresholds. In the US, there is no definition for a skyscraper, super tall, or mega tall. That means cities don’t care about hitting a certain threshold when building a building.
See this link from the CTBUH ranking cities by skyscrapers (+150 meters). New York City is THIRD behind Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
2 Likes
Maybe I didn’t understand the point. I was reading it as because we in the US don’t care about the metric system (not sure I agree BTW), we have too many buildings that fall short of the magic 300M mark. Regardless, quite looking forward to seeing 175 Park rise.
2 Likes
The point is developers don’t care about hitting made-up definitions of “skyscraper”, “supertall”, etc. Doesn’t matter if it’s in meters, feet, furlongs, whatever. Those CTBUH definitions are completely arbitrary and mean nothing. I’d wager the only time a developer cares about height is when it’s in relation to rival buildings, i.e. CPT bragging about being the tallest residential building on earth. The CTBUH’s made-up definitions of “supertall”, etc are not and should not be goals when determining a development’s height.
4 Likes
All definitions are made up 
2 Likes
Exactly. Well said.
1 Like