YIMBY Visits 277 Fifth Avenue As Façade Nears Completion

277 5th Avenue, image by Andrew Campbell Nelson277 5th Avenue, image by Andrew Campbell Nelson

Construction at 277 Fifth Avenue is moving along quickly, with just thirteen floors of façade installation remaining. Victor Group and Lendlease are developing the 55-story skyscraper in NoMad, on the corner of 30th Street. The tower, designed by Rafael Vinoly Architects, has a dark-indigo façade made of reinforced cast-concrete panels, fabricated in Finland. Multi-layered glazed curtain walls were designed for optimal thermal and acoustical performance, and there is also a cantilever over its southern neighbor.

Cantilever at 277 5th Avenue, image by Andrew Campbell Nelson

Cantilever at 277 5th Avenue, image by Andrew Campbell Nelson

A recent event at the building’s rooftop featured afternoon tea and twirling dancers dressed as construction workers. Nevertheless, the views were still the true spectacle, providing YIMBY with another comprehensive update of the city’s evolving skyline.

Hudson Yards from 277 Fifth Avenue, image by Andrew Nelson

Hudson Yards from 277 Fifth Avenue, image by Andrew Nelson

Looking to Hudson Yards, one can see the observation deck for 30 Hudson Yards is nearly complete, a subject we will cover imminently. Progress for One Manhattan West‘s superstructure continues, with the concrete core growing near to its imminent peak.

138 East 50th Street next to the Chrysler Building, image by Andrew Campbell Nelson

138 East 50th Street next to the Chrysler Building from 277 Fifth Avenue, image by Andrew Campbell Nelson

Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail

Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews


10 Comments on "YIMBY Visits 277 Fifth Avenue As Façade Nears Completion"

  1. Please pardon me for using your space: Do you like cone on rooftop?

  2. Urbane Urbanist | May 4, 2018 at 9:29 am | Reply

    That cantilever is so absurd it is bordering on criminal–especially considering how it disrupts the rectilinear nature of the Vinoly building’s design. Why in the world are we saving that dilapidated, generic piece of trash building?!

    • I believe the building next door is being saved because the developer doesn’t own it, only the air rights. Tearing down a building you don’t own is generally frowned upon, regardless of whether you think it’s a ‘generic piece of trash.’
      Besides, it’s not like the cantilever ruins an otherwise great design. The Vinoly building on its own is neither good nor interesting, the interaction with the neighbor is at least interesting.

    • Chris Becket | May 4, 2018 at 8:16 pm | Reply

      I was wondering the same thing.

  3. The dilapidated generic trash building owner held out for too much – greed. The developer decided to deal with it by cantilevering. Now the greedy building owner can luxuriate in his little piece of heaven.

    • Are you sure? It’s a little hard to follow, but looking over the sale history I believe the developer DID buy the generic building next door, transferred the air rights and then sold the building. You can’t just cantilever your building over the neighboring property if they refuse to sell, you have to at least buy the air rights.
      (As a side note, choosing not to sell is not greedy, thinking that a developer is entitled to buy any property they want, regardless of whether the owner wants to sell IS greedy.)

  4. Do we really want to take private property for asthetic reasons?

  5. “Hi, we’re NY YIMBY and we cover development from a PrO-gRoWtH pErSpEcTiVe.”

    Seriously the elitists at NY YIMBY are some of the most short-sighted, insulated, and naïve people that have ever lived in/written about NYC. Though I agree with the sentiment that there is a need to allow for growth in our housing, they don’t seem to realize that no matter how much housing is built, there will never be enough housing affordable enough for the majority of New Yorkers that live here or Americans that want to move here. As much as they might consider themselves pro-growth, they also need to realize that they’re supporting and actively encouraging the development of ‘luxury rentals’ long-time predominantly-black and -brown neighborhoods, and even exacerbating the rise of rents across the city. This causes displacement (which means people move out of the city), because even if there is new housing being built across the city, less people can actually afford it. Additionally, people who might have been able to stay because they owned their residencies or had a favorable situation are now leaving because they see both more affordable, economically-viable pastures elsewhere. And these two factors are why Brooklyn and other parts of the city are experiencing a net-loss of population. Supporting the causes behind these two effects sounds “anti-growth” to me.

    Also, to address the supposedly architectural commentary that YIMBY tries to claim they present on their blog, you guys do not have a good architectural eye. Stop blindly reporting ugly looking buildings, it only embarrasses you.

    • Nikolai Fedak | May 5, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Reply

      I think your comment is embarrassing to you, therefore it has been approved 🙂

      Ignorance is bliss!



    • Chris Becket | May 6, 2018 at 7:15 am | Reply

      MS: Yes, YIMBY does indeed “cover development from a PrO-gRoWtH pErSpEcTiVe.” That’s what it does; “Y” = “YES”, so what on earth can you expect? The shortage of affordable housing is a contentious issue. There is no panacea, so in the NIMBY/YIMBY debate, the solution will most probably be found somewhere in between these two poles, but time will tell. In the meantime, YIMBY has a duty to report on any and all development, from micro to macro (which it does very well), regardless of aesthetic appeal (something which is highly subjective in each viewer) as “ugly” is in the eye of the beholder.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.