# Talk:432 Park Avenue

What kind of architectural reception has this building gotten?  I think it's hideous, and it would be interesting to see different opinions represented if anyone with a qualified opinion has written anything about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.75.168 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC) 

There reads: the tower is designed to have eighty-four 93-foot-square (28 m) stories
What is a "foot-square"? It is converted like it would be 93 ft, but then why the "square"? I doubt that the building will have that much 93 feet stories, it would result 7812 feet (1.48 miles or 2381 m). 1396 ft total / 84 stories = about 16.6 ft per story. 82.141.117.146 (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if trolling... Each floor is a square of 93 feet per side. "X foot square" is a common way of describing squares in terms of the length of their sides. Are you reading that as "93 feet high" somehow? · rodii · 16:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If English want my native language I might be confused, too. How about 93x93 foot stories? Anyway, I thought they were 93.5 feet, which would be 94 feet if rounded. The columns are about (or exactly?) 4 feet wide, which would make the inside square almost 10 feet smaller than the outside. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The article states that each story contains a floor area of 3969 square feet, but just below that in the next section, it states that one of the apartments has a floor area of 4000 square feet, which is half of the 35th floor of the tower. This would seem to indicate a square footage of more like 8000 per story, not 3969 as stated in the "design" section 63.237.9.162 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Spot on. Source states 8255 square feet. Figure amended IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure where these numbers came from but the minimum gross area of each floor is 93'x93' = 8649ft^2. if the actual usable floor space is 8255ft^2 that leaves only 393ft^2 for walls and shafts. That is extremely unlikely... That is a great deal less than the probable combined shaft area of the 11 elevators. A hand-wavy estimate based on typical construction of extremely tall buildings would limit the usable floor space for 432 Park to around 50% of gross area, or around 4000ft^2.

Article correctly quotes reference that states footprint is 33,000 square feet. However, based on the 93ft floors the real footprint of the tower is closer to the 8255 square feet mentioned above. The 33,000 square feet appears to refer to the lotsize, not the footprint. JEH (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

One would expect the footprint to be about 80–90% of the lot size and the total/gross floor area to be something on the order of 84 × the footprint. (The floor area may be less if mechanical spaces are excluded [update: I later learned that the tower is no where near covering the entire lot and adjusted the text accordingly. —15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)].) I agree that the current version is not good, but I don't agree that 33k is the correct footprint. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 21:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The intro says "the tallest residential building in the world" and cites a proper third-party source to back that up. But the "Height and Slenderness" section makes the weaker claim "tallest residential building in the Western Hemisphere" and improperly cites the building's own web site for support.
List of tallest residential buildings has 432 Park Avenue at the top based on that same third-party source, so for consistency across Wikipedia, I've removed the weaker claim entirely. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The infobox states 88 as the number of floors but the Engineering section mentions “each of the 85 stories”. The source for the former mentions 85 floors above ground and 3 below ground. Okay, this may all be coherent.
However, these numbers apparently include the “mechanical” floors. From the photos, there seem to be 12 of those. If that is correct, the number of floors that are used as residential would be 73. This should be mentioned somewhere.
Then, the same source that makes the distinction between above ground and below ground floors states that the number of apartments is 146 whereas the lead mentions 125. Is there an explanation for this? 74.58.147.69 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 96 above ground floors, the 12 "mechanical floors" are actually unused, so there should be 84 actual floors. epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I’m concerned that our information about the floor count many be coming from inaccurate or out-of-date sources. It’s not hard to get conflicting information just by looking at different versions of the same document filed with the DOB different years. The first four ZD1 Zoning Diagrams filed list 85 numbered floors plus 1M, but then the November 2017 filing (scanned 2018-02-01) lists 79 numbered floors plus 1M. I’ve spent enough time revising DOB filing sets to know that we’re unlikely to know if this represents a design change, a clerical change based on zoning idiosyncrasies, or a flat out error, so I’m not going to try to read into this, but it does demonstrate how mistaken figures might make get published.
The best sections and elevations I’ve found number every floor (occupliable, service, and roof) and seem to stop at 89. I’ve yet to find a photo that shows the whole tower from street to roof well enough to serve as a definitive reference, but the best photos make me doubt that there are 7 blocks of 12 occupliable floors. It looks like there might be 6½-ish. This photo is particularly good for a from-the-air view and this one is particularly good for a from-the-ground one. It looks like the occupiable floors are probably 6 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 10 = 76 or thereabouts. There’s a bit so slosh because without a good section, I can’t know if the lowest “break” is truly unoccupied, and there are some drawings that show 4 double-height stories starting with the Floor 05. I feel confident that 84 is not a correct figure (unless we’re counting sub-cellars?), but I’d love to get a more definitive answer. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 18:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
JamesLucas Trying to reconcile the sale of a unit on the 96th floor in a later part of the article, with a floor count of 84 for condominiums, I thought the 12 floors of mechanical equipment affect the numbering of residential floors. I have not been to this building, and am drawing all my facts from this article. The mechanical floors are paired, meaning 6 breaks between blocks of 12 residential floors. Dividing the building height (top occupied floor) in feet by 96 comes a little over 13 feet, which seems close to reasonable for average floor height. If I use 1,396 feet architectural height and 96 floors, that is 14.5 feet per floor average. I am not really dealing with that mezzanine floor in my counting, where I believe there is retail. Is it the ground floor and condominiums start on floor 2, but that us called first floor? Then up to 96 as top penthouse floor. I am not clear about the 110 feet difference between architectural height and top occupied floor height. Have I more or less understood that top floor number of 96? - - Prairieplant (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the engineering section that states, "The facade was poured in place from concrete using 14,000 pounds per square inch (96,527 kPa) white Portland cement" - what does this mean?  How does cement, which is usually a powder in my experience, have pressure of this magnitude, or indeed any magnitude? I tried to access the source but the page is unavailable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the 14,000 pounds per square inch refers to the fluid concrete mix, of which the cement powder is only one component. For reference, the concrete contractor claims "over 18,000 psi was obtained using 345 lbs of cement, 120 lbs of fly ash, 620 lbs of slag and 40 lbs of SF." Here's a few additional sources that discuss this more in depth: [1], [2], [3]. Wontonalertbulb (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the sentence as it stands isn't clear.  I think you're right, it refers to the concrete, though as it stands the sentence doesn't make this clear. More importantly, I think it should make it clear that the "14,000 pounds" figure is referring not to any inherent pressure that the concrete is exerting, but rather to the pressure it can withstand, so it's a measure of concrete strength. At least, that is what I think it is referring to. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Viñoly said that the regular lattice was inspired by a 1905 trash can by Austrian designer Josef Hoffmann."
Tell you what, this tower looks an awful lot like the "Towering Inferno" model from SCTV (December 10, 1982). 135.12.144.8 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

A Tower on Billionaires’ Row Is Full of Cracks. Who’s to Blame? — NY Times, October 19, 2025.  == Peter NYC 19:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)