Supertall Condo Aesthetics

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
I was looking at the 3 Extell buildings:
Central Park Tower
image00005-2-e1628099174585_copy_520x693.jpeg

1 Manhattan Square 83661_500x650.jpg

And Brooklyn Point Brooklyn-Point-Close-1024x795_copy_438x715.png

While I wouldn't necessarily call any of them ugly, they do seem to be a bit unremarkable aside from size/height.

Opinions?
 

Noah Rosenblatt

Talking Manhattan on UrbanDigs.com
Staff member

inonada

Well-known member
Extell has never been in the market for doing something architecturally interesting. Interesting cost more money, incrementally on the overall price tag but a sum nevertheless. The question is whether people will pay for it.

Extell’s machine ran fine as long as demand exceeded supply. But as that equation changes, they’ve been on the receiving end of it. The differences between CPT and 220 CPS are incremental cost-wise. But the 2 blocks & differentiated aesthetics seems to have made all the difference.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
I wonder if at some point in the future they will be looked at the same way "1960s buildings" and then later "1980s buildings" did, along with being priced at discounts sufficient that people bought them simply as value plays because "you get so much for your money compared to the good stuff."
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
Extell has never been in the market for doing something architecturally interesting. Interesting cost more money, incrementally on the overall price tag but a sum nevertheless. The question is whether people will pay for it.

Extell’s machine ran fine as long as demand exceeded supply. But as that equation changes, they’ve been on the receiving end of it. The differences between CPT and 220 CPS are incremental cost-wise. But the 2 blocks & differentiated aesthetics seems to have made all the difference.
Is Central Park Tower ever going to be the kind of "it" building like 220 Central Park South? I think we discussed before how some buildings get that out of the box and then fade - like Limestone Jesus (15 CPW) and perhaps One57 (which while it had the highest sale in history when it opened never sold out). But now that 217 West 57th St has been on the market for 3 years and never seems to have reached critical mass, what would it take to suddenly catch fire?
PS I really don't understand why they can't say whether it's a Sponsor sale. In fact I think they are obliged to
"The condo has not previously been shown, according to the CEO of Corcoran. It’s not clear if the listing is a resale — where the unit owner can set the price as they please — or a sponsor sale, when the developer sets the price and sets the market for other unsold units."

PPS As far as I can tell so of the views advertised by photos in some of the listings can't be the actual view from the unit. This was an issue which came to up at ONE57 when Gary Barnett and Michael Hirtenstein virtually came to blows over Hirtenstein bribing a construction worker to take a video from where the unit he was in contract for was going to be and claimed his actual view would be obstructed by the Essex House sign.
 

Noah Rosenblatt

Talking Manhattan on UrbanDigs.com
Staff member
I wonder if at some point in the future they will be looked at the same way "1960s buildings" and then later "1980s buildings" did, along with being priced at discounts sufficient that people bought them simply as value plays because "you get so much for your money compared to the good stuff."
Think it will. Each era of new dev seems to be defined in some way like that. Im wondering what the development of 2025 is going to look like? the stuff that is being filed now, that wont start building for years to meet new needs?
 

inonada

Well-known member
Is Central Park Tower ever going to be the kind of "it" building like 220 Central Park South? I think we discussed before how some buildings get that out of the box and then fade - like Limestone Jesus (15 CPW) and perhaps One57 (which while it had the highest sale in history when it opened never sold out). But now that 217 West 57th St has been on the market for 3 years and never seems to have reached critical mass, what would it take to suddenly catch fire?
PS I really don't understand why they can't say whether it's a Sponsor sale. In fact I think they are obliged to
"The condo has not previously been shown, according to the CEO of Corcoran. It’s not clear if the listing is a resale — where the unit owner can set the price as they please — or a sponsor sale, when the developer sets the price and sets the market for other unsold units."

PPS As far as I can tell so of the views advertised by photos in some of the listings can't be the actual view from the unit. This was an issue which came to up at ONE57 when Gary Barnett and Michael Hirtenstein virtually came to blows over Hirtenstein bribing a construction worker to take a video from where the unit he was in contract for was going to be and claimed his actual view would be obstructed by the Essex House sign.
I think this is going to continue being a flop. Take a look at this unit asking nearly $5000 ppsf:


Conspicuously missing is 220 CPS from the north-facing pics. So what all would I be getting for $5000 ppsf? View could be better. Neighborhood could be better. Ceiling height could be better. Exposures could be better.
 

TMalloy

New member
I think Brooklyn Point looks decent, and (mentioned later in thread) One57 is quite unique in a good way. Manhattan Square's shape is a bore but I will give the architects credit for this: the color of the glass changes from black to gold to blue throughout the day, which give you something to look at. Now as for One Central Park being the tallest in New York City and looking like that... /smh. They could have done something, anything, to give it some flair.

But all that is in the eye of the beholder- everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However I will nitpick the post slightly to say that "supertall" has a generally accepted definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertall) of being over 1000 feet (technically 300m / 984ft), of which only CPT and One57 meet that definition.
 

Ronald M

New member
Building big is more costly per square foot than building on the landscape. That said, building vertically cuts down few costs per square foot, the main thing is the cost of the area. Depending on all these things there is an optimal height to build because building higher than that will double the expenditure. This optimal height will change from place to place and also differ within the same city. I normally heard people who love height from my experience even though there are haters. Usually, the more valuable the land, the height will be optimal. As I said, it differs greatly, but generally it's between 8 and 12 stories.
 

inonada

Well-known member
I dunno, this one always looked nice to me…


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/realestate/432-park-avenue-lawsuit.html

Residents of Troubled Supertall Tower Seek $125 Million in Damages​

The condo board at 432 Park Avenue is suing the developers for construction and design defects that have led to floods, faulty elevators, and electrical explosions.


The condo board at the supertall tower 432 Park Avenue, one of the most expensive addresses in the world, is suing the developers for $125 million in damages, citing multiple floods, faulty elevators, “intolerable” noise caused by building sway, and an electrical explosion in June — the second in three years — that knocked out power to residents, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
I dunno, this one always looked nice to me…


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/realestate/432-park-avenue-lawsuit.html

Residents of Troubled Supertall Tower Seek $125 Million in Damages​

The condo board at 432 Park Avenue is suing the developers for construction and design defects that have led to floods, faulty elevators, and electrical explosions.


The condo board at the supertall tower 432 Park Avenue, one of the most expensive addresses in the world, is suing the developers for $125 million in damages, citing multiple floods, faulty elevators, “intolerable” noise caused by building sway, and an electrical explosion in June — the second in three years — that knocked out power to residents, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday.
From what I can tell very few actually live there. I would love to see what the occupancy statistics are.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
Aside from aesthetics, these extra tall buildings have always had added levels of difficulty of construction. I remember hearing about the tuned mass damper in the Citicorp Center on Park Avenue, but only recently became aware of this hidden story:

Recently we have seen stories published about issues in 432 Park Avenue, and now there is a lawsuit. I have to wonder how many of these buildings are going to have major issues in the future.

432 Park Avenue residents sue developers for $250M​

Condo board seeking damages for flooding, noise, troublesome elevators​

Residents at CIM Group and Macklowe Properties’ 432 Park Avenue are escalating previously reported complaints over a wide range of issues with the building’s design and construction in a $250 million lawsuit filed Thursday.
The condo board of the Billionaires’ Row tower is suing the developers for issues related to flooding, broken elevators, noise from the building’s sway and a June electrical explosion, according to the New York Times. The lawsuit doesn’t include potential punitive damages or individual lawsuits residents may file.

The damages claim is based on approximately 1,500 construction and design problems found by an engineering firm the board hired to inspect the building.

The complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court reportedly mentions “life safety” issues, including how residents have been trapped in elevators for hours at a time after building sway caused them to stall. Floods and leaks have also occurred due to poor plumbing installation, according to the board, damaging 35 units and common areas and causing millions of dollars in repairs.

Noise complaints include the sound and vibration that stems from building sway, according to the complaint, especially during inclement weather. One resident also said it “sounds like a bomb” when garbage is thrown into the trash chute, the Times reported in February.
Macklowe Properties didn’t provide the outlet comment on the lawsuit. But a spokesman for the sponsor — which includes the CIM Group — said commitments at the building have been honored and accused the condo board of blocking some maintenance requests. CIM Group co-founder Richard Ressler owns a unit in the building.

432 Park Avenue was designed by Rafael Viñoly’s firm. It was built in 2015 with a projected sellout of $3.1 billion. While the building is almost sold out, resales have slowed since the first wave of complaints became public in February. Only one sale at the building has closed since January, according to The Times.
 
Top