NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 15

yankeesfan1000 · #**281** Posted **Aug 19, 2011, 10:45 PM**

Glass half full side of this, a tower that's say 1300 feet tall and thinner than the TWT will be incredibly impressive. Even if it looks like it was designed with legos. Side note, the fact that this will essentially be just a box makes me really hope that Extells 225 W 57th tower is really something extraordinary.

RobertWalpole · #**282** Posted **Aug 19, 2011, 10:54 PM**

I agree with you. This will be an arcitectural failure regardless of the height. Torre Verre and 225 W 57th hold our only hopes for new landmarks.

patriotizzy · #**283** Posted **Aug 19, 2011, 10:58 PM**

I just read the last few pages and now I feel very disappointed. You hyped us up for something great Robert! That's not cool in a skyscraper website!!!!!!!!!!!

RobertWalpole · #**284** Posted **Aug 19, 2011, 11:03 PM**

I hyped for the great height that is, in fact, forthcoming. The architecture, however, will be so boring that Vinoly's Domino Sugar site will look as great as Torre Verre or the London Shard compared to the monument to boredom planned for this site.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**285** Posted **Aug 19, 2011, 11:51 PM**

perhaps a reincarnation?

http://www.mosaicwallpapers.com/wall...x1080_3312.jpg

kickser · #**286** Posted **Aug 19, 2011, 11:55 PM**

Robert, are you allowed to tell us, if this one will exceed the 400m mark?

RobertWalpole · #**287** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 12:05 AM**

Unless something changes, which is unlikely, it will be within that range. However, you will be sorely disappointed by the very, very, very, very, very mundane design.

Dale · #**288** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 12:11 AM**

So, just to review, the project is: (1) designed by the starchitect Vinoly and is (2) exceedingly boring.

Is that right ?

JayPro · #**289** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I hyped for the great height that is, in fact, forthcoming. The architecture, however, will be so boring that Vinoly's Domino Sugar site will look as great as Torre Verre or the London Shard compared to the monument to boredom planned for this site.

I may be missing a few things here, but......
I have to ask (rhetorically, if you wish...and with all seriously due respect):

Can I assume from the tenor of your posts that you may have been given privileged access to official renders and are now dropping a hint or two ?
Or are you indeed radically lowballing all of our expectations to what IMHO may be no prupose?
IMHO (again), merely offering hyper-pessimistic guesswork one way or the other
seems unfair to the people involved in the building's design.
But that's me.

I admit to not being as knowledgeable of Mr. Macklowe's exploits as you and--I would assume--many others on this board. But I have researched enough to opine that his choice of architect has no objections from me.

I'm just suggesting that we give the involved parties a chance to prove some of us wrong (or right, or anywhere beyond or between), especially given the swank section of Town in which this building is to rise.

Loqy Lion · #**290** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 12:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

perhaps a reincarnation?

[IMG][/url]

No. The Twins were absolutely massive with regard to girth, as well.

CoolCzech · #**291** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 1:21 AM**

I don't get it... why hire a starchitect to put up a mediocrity any college architectural major could design?

Roadcruiser1 · #**292** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 2:55 AM**

Although the Twin Towers were massive I do agree that it should be reincarnated somewhere in the City or in neighboring Jersey City. I have a feeling the Twin Towers wouldn't have had looked as bad if they had wider windows that displayed the glass as well to give a balancing act. Blame that on Minoru Yamasaki who had a fear of heights.

Mr. Lion · #**293** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Although the Twin Towers were massive I do agree that it should be reincarnated somewhere in the City or in neighboring Jersey City. I have a feeling the Twin Towers wouldn't have had looked as bad if they had wider windows that displayed the glass as well to give a balancing act. Blame that on Minoru Yamasaki who had a fear of heights.

Fear is never rational.

gramsjdg · #**294** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 4:40 AM**

As far as I am concerned, "boring" design is a small price to pay for finally breaking the 1300 ft barrier in midtown. 99 church street is essentially a box, but looks very nice. Maybe this will be similar-(scaled up, of course). The lack of girth will accentuate the height and make this look even taller, which I think will balance out any lack in the design. A 1300-1400 ft Trump World Tower is just dandy with me too.

400 meter territory is damn good news!

Maybe this will inspire a height competition with W 57th

fimiak · #**295** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 5:10 AM**

When someone says "very very very very very mundane" you can only expect the worst.

JayPro · #**296** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 6:37 AM**

Or maybe it could be that if someone says "very, very, very (repeat about 2000 times) mundane", he's just begging the question. You cannot and should not expect to validate or substantiate your argument if an emotionally-tinged proposition is all you have (read: are willing) to go by. Logic 101.
Once and for all, if there's reason to believe that this tower is as bland as is being suspected, let's have proof of a smoking gun whose barrel points in the direction of evidence.
The manifest fact that so many posters in this thread are lending gospel status to an as-yet un-debunked phantom rumor kinda worries me.

RobertWalpole · #**297** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 11:30 AM**

I wanted to temper people's expectations. It will be tall. However, for those expecting an inconic design that the location warrants, such as something like Torre Verre, the London Shard, etc., it's not happening. People were very disappointed by the design of One57, and yet that is FAR more interesting and WAY more unconventional that what will rise here.

If this were a building that was built on an empty lot on 6th Ave. and 29th Street, for example, people would say, it's kind of a nice building (assuming it were a 600 foot version of the box to come). However, considering the iconic location, the design will be an ENORMOUS disappointment, unless, of course, anyone likes a bland box.

This thing will have the architectural flair of a supertall version of Harry Gross' Marriott Residence Inn rising at 1715 Broadway.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ott1-popup.jpg

Thanks, Macklowe!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/im...25_west_55.jpg

RobertWalpole · #**298** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 3:11 PM**

PS: The developer is also considering a version of the same boring design in the 900 to 1000 foot range, which woud be great news since this lame box would be less visible on the skyline.

Dac150 · #**299** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 5:36 PM**

There’s a lot of judgment being passed before the design is even released.

NYCLuver · #**300** Posted **Aug 20, 2011, 5:48 PM**

So basically its going to be like a 1,300 ft rendition of what 610 Lexington Avenue was supposed to be, but maybe even cheaper looking?

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/2004_05_fostermid.jpg