NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (217 W 57th St) | 1,550 FT | 98 FLOORS

Can you paste the article? I suspect that these units are averaging at least $4-$5k/sf.

Barnett: Central Park Tower will fall short of $4B sellout

Discounts abound at Billionaires’ Row supertall

New York

Aug. 05, 2022 04:31 PM

TRD Staff

Another Central Park Tower pad has sold for far less than its original ask, and developer Gary Barnett recognizes his supertall isn’t going to achieve the lofty sellout he once envisioned.

The latest sponsor unit to sell at Billionaires’ Row’s tallest skyscraper went for $43 million, the Wall Street Journal reported , 33 percent less than the $63.8 million Barnett’s Extell Development originally sought when it placed it on the market in 2019.

The anonymous buyer lives in Singapore, according to Triplemint’s James Michael Angelo, who represented her in the deal. Angelo said he initially offered $38 million for the unit — which drew a laugh from the marketing team — but only had to come up by $5 million to close the deal.

The 7,000-square-foot condo at 225 West 57th Street offers 360-degree views of Central Park and both rivers. There’s also a library, a private reception gallery and a 1,500-square-foot salon.

In June, Barnett acknowledged that the 57th Street supertall was going to fall far short of its $4 billion projected sellout, the Journal reported Thursday. Barnett added that he expected prices to appreciate at the building once construction wrapped in the next few months.

Closings began at Central Park Tower in February 2021. An October analysis by The Real Deal found that most units that had closed in the building had sold for far less than the prices outlined in Extell’s offering plan.

Across 33 closings that had hit public records by October, condos in the tower sold for an average of 25 percent less than their offering plan target on a per-square-foot basis, for 16 percent on a per-unit basis. Asked about the difference, Barnett called it “a basic fallacy” to describe the gap between sales prices and those listed in offering plans as a discount.

“We decided to go for sales velocity rather than maximum pricing,” he told TRD at the time. “I don’t see any downside.”

The project’s $900 million construction loan was set to mature in December and Barnett, who claimed to be “within striking distance” of paying it off, expressed a willingness to cut deals to get it done.



Extell is still getting astronomical prices which America’s second most expensive city, San Francisco, couldn’t remotely match.

1 Like

Or Chicago if you want a bargain.




“There’s a bunch of artwork going for $100 million and even $200 million,” Barnett told the Journal. “When you compare that to 17,000 feet of steel and brick and glass at the top of the world, this seems like a relative bargain.”



How is the lighting on this building going?


Those orange buildings are really ugly

Too bad they are landmarked lol.


Those are landmarked? What a joke.

1 Like

Yeah, it’s unfortunate because they aren’t pretty, but they were landmarked because they were one of the first transition apartments that were designed away from the tradition buildings like the Ansonia and Dakota in how it focused more on the apartment interiors and natural lighting than the outside appearance of the building. They’re also designed in transitional Art Deco which is really evident in the lack of almost anything Art Deco.

1 Like

Wow, I thought they were from the 50’s, like maybe the first value engineered buildings in the city. :rofl:


Yeah, it’s hard to think that they are from the late 1930s (1939) considering how “not” that time period they look since they look like any of the housing projects built in the 50s, 60s, and later. They definitely don’t really contribute anything architecturally, especially not in relation to the towers around them.

1 Like

There’s nothing “unfortunate” about 240 Central Park South’s landmark status. The goal of the Landmarks law is to preserve historically or architecturally significant buildings, and 240 CPS is supremely qualified. It’s one of the most influential residential buildings ever built in New York, and has a highly unique place in architectural history at the confluence of Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, and Modernism. In fact it’s one of the first truly modern buildings in the city in the sense that its architecture is derived solely from the logic of its plan and site, with no pretense of historical revivalism like the earlier luxury apartments around Central Park.

Personally I think 240 CPS contributes much more architecturally to the neighborhood than CPT, which is the least attractive Billionaire’s Row tower IMO.


And that is an opinion of my own opinion of the decision to landmark the building, and I respect your opinion to oppose my view in seeing it as unfortunate, :+1: but I’m not arguing that it wasn’t important or why it was landmarked (since I mentioned briefly why it was), I understand it’s significance, I just personally don’t like it, nothing wrong with that.


I’m not a fan of 240, but I think that from some angles it’s an attractive building with very nice symmetry. It would look better if its facade was limestone or glazed white brick.


The building that was in on this site before the current structure was absolutely gorgeous. It’s sucks Dick Cheney that they razed it.