This is what I was talking about for 520 Fifth .
But you’ve said it yourself
And it works that way because of it’s multiple spiraling setbacks, this building, while still having setbacks, would not necessitate it in having a similar crown because the massing does not narrow to a point like at 520 Fifth Ave and the material is very different between the two buildings which makes the crown more appropriate in that instance. That’s not to say that glass buildings such as this one can’t have crowns, but the crown on this one is appropriate for it’s overall flat massing, a light filled green atrium.
There should be more setbacks on 341. BP generally drops the ball in NY.
I will be a bit sad if this does not end up 1000ft tall.
1 Like
Afaik, the height hovering around 850’ is approximately final per the wind test and latest massing diagram, otherwise I don’t believe they would’ve gone through with a wind test if they weren’t now settled with a “downsized” building.
Since the design isn’t very special, I prefer 850’ to 1,000’.
1 Like
Decent filler, raises the bar for other projects in the area to truly stand out.
1 Like
An early art deco terminal city building should not be demolished for anything short of a supertall or something with an outstanding design. Currently this is neither. Its only redeeming factor is the transit connectivity.
4 Likes
That’s an understandable sentiment (also for Beaux Arts and Renaissance Revival styles), but the same could be said for other Terminal City/Warren & Wetmore designed buildings that were not saved either that had much more ornamentation and importance “and” that weren’t replaced by supertalls and instead clad over i.e. The Biltmore (now Bank of America Plaza next door) and The Hotel Commodore (175 PA of course). And those are only 2 of a number of Terminal City buildings that were just clad over and haven’t been redeveloped further as of now.
Even before the height and area change, the building was still not a supertall.
1 Like
I believe the graybar, roosevelt, helmsley and the building in front of the helmsley looking south.
Yes, the planned Terminal City included an extremely wide swath of land in what stretches from Madison to Lexington Ave and 42nd to 52nd Sts, effectively everything that was above the GC train shed and then some.
1 Like
I hope that the mayor plans reduced traffic lanes and landscaping for Madison too. I suspect that he will eventually.
Here’s another great article by the inimitable, Yimby, the BBC (i.e., British Broadcasting Company) of development reporting. (I have to clarify BBC because I was told that it has another meaning.)
Bleh
1 Like
Lol, I don’t want anyone to be disappointed but like I said, even before this one was downsized, it was only 933’, it was never a supertall. The 1050’ figure was it’s max buildable height, not the actual height that was initially proposed, a similar situation as 175 Park Ave.
1 Like
With this tower, as with 262 Fifth, I welcome height cuts. This isn’t terrible like 262, but I don’t want a vanilla box to grab attention on the skyline. Boston Properties sucks. They always drop the ball in NY. 3 Hudson is decent and will be their best work in NY. However, they could have done better there too.
Even at 1,050 this would not grab attention on the New York Skyline. It would be better than now, but it would still be surrounded on most sides by towers much bigger than it. Not to mention future proposals which will also block it (45 East 45th, etc)
1 Like
It would grab attention in that location when viewed from the west. 850 is fine with me.
It’s good to see demolitions almost done. Disappointment of a project though, most exciting thing about this is the underground connections
1 Like