Witkoff said the 36 Central Park S will start to be razed at the end of the first quarter of 2017. How can I confirm it?
if that is the case, then Witkoff will eventually have to file for a permit to demolish the current building. Keep an eye on the NYC Department of Buildings website for permits pertaining to 36 Central Park South (or any alternate addresses it may have)
He said he already got the permit but it was not on the government website. Is it possible?
I’m John Boehner, and I approve that message!
Hopefully, Witkoff’s optimism will expedite this process.
I concur re: Dodd-Frank.
4 Likes
3 Likes
Nice!
The WSJ article states that the hotel revenue is insufficient to service the debt, and that Witkoff may face foreclosure. Therefore, hopefully, Witkoff will try to develop this soon.
Despite competition from Other projects, this is the best site in the city; ergo, this should be a huge success.
Also, this will take years to come to the market due to the complexity of razing the hotel. Thus, there really isn’t even any competition per se.
1 Like
This article seems misleading. I don’t think that Witkoff wants to sell the whole site.
1 Like
Its the same dated design but i dont think ive seen these renderings posted.
7 Likes
That tower sucks. I’m glad that it won’t be built
That looks like your typical condo building found anywhere in the world.
this feels very light
one could argue about shape but the structure feels airy
Its a little too Miami for me!
But anything is better than the current building…
Very nice. Not a fan of balconies on some buildings.
1 Like
I think it’s beautiful, but this isn’t what will rise anyway since the owners are selling the site.
2 Likes
Hello,
I recently completed my studies at the Faculty of architecture in Ljubljana, Slovenia. My master thesis was of experimental nature and dealt with questions of basic architectural inquiry: what is objectively good and what bad, what better and what worse? Is there an objective standard, which we can try to achieve, if we want to make something that is objectively aesthetically well made? Through my research I determined some geometric properties of beautiful structures and tried to apply them to a high rise building in New York.
The project was not well received since it is a high rise - understandably, since there is a lot of evidence, that tall buildings make people, quite plainly, crazy. Also, not everybody agrees that there is such a thing as “objective standards of beauty”. Sadly, apart from the criticism of height, I haven’t received any feedback about the design, which is the reason I am posting this here. I would like to know, what you, New Yorkers, feel about this building? Is it well made, is it actually beautiful - which was the aim of the thesis? Or is it a complete miss and it’s “back to the drawing board”?
Building’s basic info:
Height: 376 m (occupied), 425 m (architectural)
Floors: 76 above + 2 below ground
Base dimensions: 23/30 m
Base floor area: 690 m2
Total floor area: 50,075 m2
Any comments about it will be greatly appreciated!
Thank you and kind regards,
Nejc Vasl
More about the project on the link bellow:
https://www.nejcvasl.com/1-park-lane
9 Likes
It’s absolutely gorgeous!
The only thing I would maybe add to the tower is verticality. This could be accomplished with thin vertical groves in the concrete from the base to the crown or with thin vertical outcroppings (like the southern facade of 111 W57th st), or making the shape of the windows more vertical and rectangular and increasing their size.
Welcome to the forums!
4 Likes
Thank you Streetscaper!
Yes the verticality could be emphasised more. The main columns are visible on the facade, but the depth of the cladding appears to not be deep enough and they (and the shadow it casts) are not visible from afar - detail visible on the axonometric drawing and floor plan bellow.
Thank you again for the comment and for the welcome!
6 Likes