Here is another (of many) reasons I like the look of the facade treatment on this building. The builders are now putting up high quality metal panels - it think called rain screens - on the entire surface over the exposed concrete core.
I also read somewhere they may even be PV panels which seems to be some sort of high quality - and perhaps highly attractive - feature.
As a stark comparison to a similar condition; take a Iook at 450 11th Avenue (linked below) and see an example of how poorly this raw concrete wall could have been done.
The developers here at 262 Fifth Ave did not VE this exposed concrete wall by covering the entire surface with what looks like some sort of waterproof black paint; which is exactly what was done at 450 11th Avenue. (see link to 450 11th Ave.)
They are not being installed yet, that is a test piece that was put up temporarily months if not several years ago at this point. A rainscreen cannot be installed ontop of bare concrete, it needs to be waterproofed first.
I already mentioned this in the post where I shared this image.
A noncomparison because the conditions are not similar at all. A building will be built abutting the 2 lot line walls that 450 11th Ave has, there is nothing done poorly in using an EIFS system, because thereâs 0 reason to spend money on a lot line wall that will be covered in the future by the party wall of an adjacent building, hundreds of projects around NY employee EIFS systems.
It was not VEâed because it was not a similar condition and neither is the instance at 450 11th Ave VEâing anything. Youâve clearly looked past the fact that this tower is being entirely covered in actual black waterproofing whereas the waterproofing at 450 11th Ave was bright blue. It is not exactly what was done there.
I donât really think the use of spitball here is being used as itâs being intended (there was no need to provide the definition for the word, it seems insulting.) There were no proposal of ideas being made, so I wouldnât quite say many people are spitballing here.
There are a great deal of people here who are very knowledgeable on a vast variety of subject, varying from photography (an enormously large part of this community who always provide us with many great updates or just photos in general), construction, architecture, engineering, real estate/development, and many other different subjects. I donât really consider making assumptions or comparisons as spitballing (in this context anyways).
A lot of information is always readily available on many projects here, thatâs why I question the need to make assumptions about other projects or compare âxâ projects to âxâ project (etc) when the information is there that provides the necessity to or to not make comparisons between different projects.
If something is actually an unknown then it makes sense to make assumptions or inquiries about said something of which occurs many times on these forums in general simply because information is sparse. But why make assumptions if something is know? Food for thought
Did not mean to insult you; only saying that I (and many other posters) will always be making random, and often inaccurate, comments. I think all input is good; all âfood for thoughâ .
It always good to hear your take: sorry if you were insulted.
I think my general idea was to point out that the developer at 262 could have chosen a much cheeper option for that exposed concrete core section. I see many examples where this cheeper process is done even when the exposed concrete is NOT on a lot line: that would be a case that would probable be called a VE (cost saving) measure.
This is sort of the random thought that came to mind when seeing those nice looking PV panels being put on at 262 Fifth Avenue. I appreciate that the developer is using panels like âcrinkled metalâ and PV panels. My comment are not always well researched or thought through; so I think the term âspitballingâ may be the right term. Maybe ârandom observationâ or âwild guessingâ is a better way the phrase the process.
Itâs all good. All input, is good input IMHOâŚcheers.
I appreciate this comment and inquiries do bring about good conversations that help everyone in the long term.
In regards to this, using an EIFS system over a rainscreen is actually not cheaper, EIFS normally costs more to install but is cheaper in the long run because of the many advantages it has over using a traditional rainscreen.
In regards to what would be considered VE, choosing siding opts wouldnât really be considered VE. The application of EIFS at 450 11th Ave was probably done so more because, since EIFS doesnt really require that much maintenance, as the walls will eventually be covered it made more sense to use EIFS over the much larger surface area.
The decision to use a rainscreen here at 262 was more so made because of the decision to implement the PV panels somehow into the facade, this actually may prove to be a more costly choice as PVs need to be frequently maintained and may not generate enough return to have justified using them in the first place. The area needed to cover is also just much smaller than the amount of EIFS that was installed at 450.
The main ârevealâ I would like to see at this point has to do with that concrete core running up the entire height of the building. I assumed it was those grey panels in the photo posted above: turns out that only a mock-up.
That may not be the finish they use; but we will know for sure at a later date.
I am betting that the âmock-upâ we see is in fact what will be eventually used on that exposed concrete surface.
I say that because; if the developers went as far as putting the mock-up in place - it is the most likely contender to be the final choice.
Lets see - at a later date - if my prediction/guess is correct.
I am prepared to make a modest wager on that claim: any takers?
I saw this today an am suprised and impressed: those grey panels that are being installed over the raw concrete core walls are Solar Panels. That is what I understand from reading this website; and if so - these panels will be generating electrical power.
Correct me if wrong: but I think these panels are actually going to be generating electricity that will be used to supply power the building.
I have been seeing the term PV panels all over this thread; and did not know that was another name for âSolar Panelâ.
This building never ceases to amaze me; so many interesting facets to the design of this building.
The folks who designed this building deserve some sort of Genius Award.
A big âthank youâ to Alemel for all the great photos of my current favorite NYC project.
I was already quite enamored with this project before I found out that PV panels are energy generating âsolar panelsâ.
I asked Grok to tell me a bit more about this particular feature. The response was informative and quite thorough.
The following is the response from GROK regarding the PV (solar) panels -
photovoltaic facade details
The photovoltaic facade of 262 Fifth Avenue is a standout feature, integrating sustainability and innovation into the buildingâs design. Below are the key details about this energy-generating facade, based on available information:
Overview
Purpose: The facade incorporates photovoltaic (PV) glass to generate electricity, reducing the buildingâs carbon footprint and aligning with New York Cityâs sustainability regulations (Local Laws 92, 94, and 97).
Coverage: The PV facade spans approximately 50,000 square feet, primarily covering the core walls of the building, including the western elevation where the mechanical core is located.
Developer and Manufacturer: The facade is developed by Onyx Solar, a global leader in photovoltaic glass, in partnership with Gualini, an Italian facade specialist known for advanced cladding systems.
Technical Specifications
Photovoltaic Glass:
Type: The facade uses building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), specifically amorphous silicon or crystalline silicon PV glass panels, depending on the design. Onyx Solar typically employs these technologies for high-rise applications.
Transparency and Aesthetics: The PV glass is customized to balance energy generation with aesthetic appeal. It features a semi-transparent or opaque finish, designed to complement the buildingâs modern aluminum and glass curtain wall system. The exact tint and transparency level are tailored to maintain the architectural vision while optimizing solar performance.
Energy Output: While precise energy generation figures for 262 Fifth Avenue are not publicly disclosed, Onyx Solarâs PV facades typically produce 100â150 kWh per square meter annually, depending on orientation, shading, and local solar conditions. For 50,000 square feet (approximately 4,645 square meters), this could translate to an estimated 465,000â697,500 kWh per year, enough to offset a significant portion of the buildingâs energy needs (e.g., common areas, elevators, or lighting).
Fire Rating: The PV glass is Class A fire-rated, meeting stringent New York City building codes for high-rise safety.
Structural Integration:
Mounting System: The PV panels are integrated into the facade as part of a unitized curtain wall system, manufactured and installed by Gualini. This system ensures seamless attachment to the buildingâs reinforced concrete superstructure.
Core Wall Application: The PV facade is applied to the western core walls, which house the mechanical systems (elevators, staircases, etc.). This placement maximizes solar exposure on the less view-oriented side of the building, preserving the eastern, northern, and southern facades for large, triple-glazed windows.
Durability: The PV glass is designed to withstand high wind loads, temperature fluctuations, and urban environmental stressors, with a lifespan typically exceeding 25â30 years.
Sustainability Certifications:
The facade complies with New York Cityâs Local Law 97, which mandates carbon emission reductions for large buildings, and Local Laws 92 and 94, which encourage sustainable roofing and facade systems.
It contributes to potential LEED certification points or other green building standards, though specific certifications for 262 Fifth Avenue are not confirmed.
The energy generated reduces reliance on fossil fuel-based electricity, lowering the buildingâs operational carbon emissions.
Economic and Regulatory Benefits
Tax Incentives: The use of PV glass qualifies the project for federal and New York State tax credits, such as the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy systems, which can offset up to 26% of installation costs (as of 2025, subject to policy updates). Additional local incentives under New York Cityâs green building programs may also apply.
Cost Savings: The electricity generated reduces utility costs for the buildingâs common areas, potentially lowering maintenance fees for residents.
Market Appeal: The sustainable facade enhances the buildingâs appeal to environmentally conscious buyers in the ultra-luxury condo market, aligning with trends toward green architecture.
Innovative Aspects
First-of-Its-Kind Application: The facade is described as incorporating several âfirstsâ in design and sustainability, though specific proprietary innovations are not detailed publicly. This likely refers to the scale of PV integration in a super-slender skyscraper or the customized aesthetic of the PV glass.
Collaboration with Gualini: Gualiniâs expertise in high-performance facade systems ensures the PV glass meets both energy and structural requirements, a critical factor for a building with a 19:1 height-to-width ratio.
Urban Context: As one of the first major New York City skyscrapers to integrate PV glass at this scale, 262 Fifth Avenue sets a precedent for sustainable high-rise design in dense urban environments.
Challenges and Considerations
Solar Exposure: The western orientation of the PV facade may limit energy generation compared to south-facing surfaces, as it receives less direct sunlight, particularly in the morning. However, New Yorkâs urban canyon effect (reflected light from surrounding buildings) may partially offset this.
Maintenance: PV glass requires periodic cleaning to maintain efficiency, especially in a city environment prone to dust and pollution. The facade maintenance system, designed by Entek Engineering, likely includes provisions for this.
Cost: While PV glass reduces long-term energy costs, its upfront installation cost is higher than traditional cladding. The tax credits and energy savings help mitigate this, but the luxury condo marketâs high margins likely justify the investment.
Conclusion
The photovoltaic facade of 262 Fifth Avenue, developed by Onyx Solar and Gualini, is a pioneering feature that combines energy generation with architectural elegance. Covering 50,000 square feet of the core walls, the Class A fire-rated PV glass generates significant electricity, supports compliance with NYCâs sustainability laws, and qualifies for tax incentives. Its integration into the buildingâs slender, modern design showcases a forward-thinking approach to urban high-rise construction, though challenges like solar exposure and maintenance remain. If youâd like me to dig deeper into specific technical data (e.g., estimated energy output calculations or comparisons with other PV facades), let me know!
You realize youâre saying âPV panels are energy generating PV panelsâ? Theyâre the same thing, the same with Sheetrock vs drywall, sheetrock is just a brand of drywall, Photovoltaics is just the actual name of solar panels.
But as always with AI stuff, all the calculation being made here are assumption that do not factor real world conditions.
But I think like I mentioned before, PV panels are difficult to maintain, more so when they are not easily accessible. Thereâs not really anything innovative or new at all about their application here. What would have been innovative is if they had gone the route of integrating the PVs into the glass portion, which is currently the more innovative practice with PVs, not essentially sticking a typical PV panel on a core.
Am not quite sure about the need to have asked AI about the application here since it basically regurgitated what was mentioned on the Onyx website page with a bunch of filler. I am still very fascinated by your only taking of information from AI and not actual reputable sources.
Sorry to disappoint but I am still not enamored of the design. I appreciate the efforts to do something new, both in design and energy production. Architects trying something new and different always get my respect. Doesnât mean I have to love its aesthetic appearance. So it goes as the world turns.
and inquiries do bring about good conversations that help everyone in the long term.
