I agree the original buildings were beautiful works of architecture in terms a aesthetics; but this new building is just better.
The new building may not be as ornate in outward appearance; but is every bit as ‘attractive’ as a modernist design. The big difference (an most important) is the feel & function of the new building: spacious rooms, large expansive windows, all interiors spaces flooded with natural light, outdoor terraces extended on multiple levels.
The original building is lacks all of the above feel & function attributes: it is simply obsolete.
I do admire the artistry of those elaborate marble facades; but well designed buildings in glass, steel, and prefabricated stone panels are equally ‘beautiful’ to many - if not most. This new building is ‘better’ - inside AND out.
I agree with your sentiments, the new window treatments are better than their older counterparts, but I was strictly speaking of the tower itself, not the annex. Unless you are referring to the actual new construction that is rising? Otherwise, I have no negativativity towards it. I was just saying that it doesn’t seem like the tower should have gone through a renovation but only to make it less decorative and more “modern” at the time.
If I remember right the driving force of the demolition was because the original building had massive light courts since they predated zoning laws by decades. As big as it looks in old pictures, that original building’s floor space was… not really much floor space.
Looks like they installed most of the steel truss piece that will distribute the weight of the upper building back to the original column grid and beams for the first floor.
Kinda off this specific development, but looking at the building to the right I can’t help but wonder if there’s any chance at all it could be completed to the original vision?
Hypothetically yes, all it would take is one developer who has a passion for history and the original proposal, to get it done. I for one absolutely would if I were a billionaire developer.
Of all the major players right now, I think JDS would be the most likely to take that on. They have a proven track record of building the best possible, art deco towers. Their true reverence and love for the NYC skyline is obvious.
EDIT: one major road block could be air rights. No idea if the site still has the full amount to be able to build to the original 1300 foot height, or if they sold them off long ago.
Good thing JDS has plenty of experience in regards to assemblage of air rights. Also, I have the exact math of the building’s total height posted below. It would actually be around 200 feet taller to the roof than your own estimate. Look to the link below for my full proposal.
That’s still a very broad statement in saying “exact” math because there are no recorded/existing drawings of the original plans for the tower, all speculative measurements of the tower come from sketches and a photo of a model of the original design. But it is approximated that the tower would have been 390-400m, which is in the 1300ft range, so jackster99 is correct. Also, why the massing setback diagram for the Empire State Building?
@jackster99, as the building currently stands, it has a slightly larger area than its current maximum FAR allows for the floor area and lot. I’d say the rest of the building would require about 1.5-2 million more sqft in air rights, which is a lot considering its air rights and not alotted zoning on the development lot.
The roof height of the current building is 451 feet distributed among 30 floors. The first floor likely has one extra foot of height, so let’s discount that extra foot from the calculation. 450 feet across 30 floors results in an individual floor height of exactly 15 feet. The original planned building had 100 floors. Take 100 floors and multiply that by 15. What do you get? 1,500 feet. With the model you are suggesting, the upper 70 floors would be squished slightly, or at least a couple floors would be outright eliminated. That is not consistent with the existing floor heights at 11 Madison/MetLife North.
The massing setback for the empire state building that I provided only includes the main tower, and does not include the other two elements. It does flesh out the proportions that I will be using for the mooring mast/spire element and the broadcast antenna element, as those two elements were clearly added to the final product at 350 Fifth Avenue. I am not disputing those facts.
1,500 feet divided by 1,055 feet provides the proportion I will use for the total height of the metropolitan north project. The Empire State Building today has a 195 foot tall mooring mast. Multiply that by the proportion that I calculated and you get 277 feet and a roughly 3 inch remainder. Drop that remainder. The Empire State Building also has a 204 foot tall broadcast antenna. Multiply that by the same proportion as the mooring mast and you get 290 feet and some change. Drop that excess as well. After that, add 1,500 feet for the main tower to 277 feet for a crown/spire and 290 feet for a broadcast antenna. Then you get a total height of 2,067 feet.
Sorry man, but you are way over thinking it. It was proposed at 390-400 meters. And the renderings with the antennas were done by someone within the last 5 years or so as a vision of what the tower MIGHT look like today had it been built to its full height back in the 30s. The thinking being it would have been the logical tower for radio antenna additions in the 50s instead of the Empire State, since it would have been taller.
