My opinion on 262 5th is this: do not cover up New York’s icon (the world’s most famous building) by building a skinny pencil building in front of it. If this has to be built, then let it be an iconic building, in terms of height and design.
3 Likes
This policy is in place in London: it has worked well for preserving those historic sight lines. I do not agree we need to preserve such “view corridors” in NYC - but some do want to have something like that policy in place. Totally understand that attitude.
3 Likes
I lived in the UK this summer while studying at Oxford, and I appreciated the historic sight lines and views of St. Paul’s from different areas of London.
1 Like
But there are more proposals for buildings that are infront of the ESB than just this one, stopping this one isn’t going to change the fact that developments will be built infront of it.
As for the other part, where from downtown? From some areas it would interfere and some it wouldn’t at all.
1 Like
But creating historic sight lines (normal for many cities with iconic buildings) would stop other developments, and could be very reasonably implemented to keep the area growing with buildings of similar height (and density!) to what has been going up in the area.
The iconic view of ESB is from the south, where it stands out in front of mid town. That’s the view in question here.
…I’ll be in the area next friday
1 Like
I just want to know where these sightlines that people want for the ESB building would be, because St. Paul’s sightlines originate from other historic landmarks. That same example can’t be used because the “sightlines” of the ESB from other historic skyscrapers have already been interrupted by developments for a long time, the only difference in this case is that it’s taller than the other obstructions.
Considering One WTC is the major figure in the downtown area where you can see the full skyline, this building won’t block the ESB. If people are asking specifically about the general downtown area and not a specific area of it, this tower won’t block views to the west of Church St, east of it the building will appear to slowly move across the ESB from right to left moving west to east.
The highlighted area is where this building would block the ESB as calculated from the main stem portion of the building that is most pronounced from afar. Everything outside it is completely out of the way.
8 Likes
agreeing with TKDV - where would they be? other cities’ sightlines often fall along diagonal avenues and other natural quirks of their street layouts, but the ESB is mid-block in the center of the city grid. it would require… blocking all new developments anywhere between 5th and 6th avenues south of 33rd street? Seems like a lot just to preserve one specific century-old view
4 Likes
I think the view from the Flatiron building near Madison Square park will be affected which is an iconic location for taking pictures of the ESB.
4 Likes
@tjr101 You’re thinking is right because it will be, it’s within the scope. It would just about completely block it from the eastern point of the Flatiron building.
Although my model only shows midtown north of 26th st, this gif show the block scope in my other image.
17 Likes
Do you have a Brooklyn bridge angle? What about from one World Trade Center?
View corridors would be a slippery slope in a city with powerful NIMBYs like NYC. I think anti-development people would start to want view corridors all over. Just as an example, if they enacted some sort of view corridor for the ESB then people would probably want one for the Chrysler Building as well, which would likely mean no 175 Park or Pfizer site development, or even ones for the WTC, which could block high-rises downtown. It would be used as a wedge issue to stop all sorts of tall developments. Soon NIMBYs would be demanding view corridors towards some random outer-borough church steeple or something. This city is anti-development enough as it is, we don’t need more hurdles for new construction.
11 Likes
You can’t see ESB from WTC unless you’re up high in a building.
This tower has crane permits, BTW. It’s gonna rise shortly.
Per permits, the KPF design looks like it adds one floor.
This building isn"t being designed by KPF, its neighbor across the street is, which that design hasn’t come out yet.
Sorry, my mistake. In any case, there’s now one additional floor per permits, but I can’t understand the DOB system enough to ascertain whether there are major design changes. Based on the verbiage, no.
1 Like
Didn’t the permits say that they’re replacing the crown with additional floors?
May I ask which permit you’re looking at? The permit I see issued yesterday still says 54 stories which is the same as the one that was issued in June.
@robertwalpole I don’t remember reading/seeing that.
Is this what’s being referred to?
Hm, interesting that the DOB still says 54 floors on the newest permit.
Seems like we’ll have to wait for a new zoning document to be issued or construction document since it’s now under construction.
1 Like