NEW YORK | 53W53 (Tower Verre) | 1,050 FT / 320 M | 73 FLOORS - Page 114

JR Ewing · #**2261** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 12:57 AM**

This is the 1,250' version.

jackster99 · #**2262** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 1:02 AM**

^ All you have to do is go to page 111 on this particular thread, and scroll down about halfway to NYguy's post from September 25th to see what the current renders are. The ones you posted are the outdated 1250 foot versions. I can absolutely guarantee you this. All the usual top forumers can back that up when they next check this thread

Hudson11 · #**2263** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackster99

^ All you have to do is go to page 111 on this particular thread, and scroll down about halfway to NYguy's post from September 25th to see what the current renders are. The ones you posted are the outdated 1250 foot versions. I can absolutely guarantee you this. All the usual top forumers can back that up when they next check this thread

Ewing is correct, the renderings he posted also depict the 1050' version of the tower. The one on P 111 is part of a set which was only recently released. The height got cut a long time ago. I don't think official renderings of the 1250' version were ever released.

JR Ewing · #**2264** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

Ewing is correct, the renderings he posted also depict the 1050' version of the tower. The one on P 111 is part of a set which was only recently released. The height got cut a long time ago.

this diagram is from the first few pages of the thread.

Thank you, Hudson. I was appalled by the rudeness that some felt compelled to inject. I appreciate your civility.

jackster99 · #**2265** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

Ewing is correct, the renderings he posted also depict the 1050' version of the tower. The one on P 111 is part of a set which was only recently released. The height got cut a long time ago. I don't think official renderings of the 1250' version were ever released.

this diagram is from the first few pages of the thread.

Hudson, if you go to page 4 of this thread, and scroll down to the post by Jularc from 2007, you will see the first render that was released for this tower. That is the exact same image that Ewing posted today on page 113 claiming to be the version we are getting. The image he posted is the 2007 image of the 1250 foot version

Hudson11 · #**2266** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 2:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackster99

Hudson, if you go to page 4 of this thread, and scroll down to the post by Jularc from 2007, you will see the first render that was released for this tower. That is the exact same image that Ewing posted today on page 113 claiming to be the version we are getting. The image he posted is the 2007 image of the 1250 foot version

the image I posted was from the page 3, in fact NYguy originally posted it. The image is from the New York Times, and they compared the height of the tower to the ~1050' Chrysler Building in the diagram.

jackster99 · #**2267** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

the image I posted was from the page 3, in fact NYguy originally posted it. The image is from the New York Times, and they compared the height of the tower to the ~1050' Chrysler Building in the diagram.

Yes I know, you posted the correct version. But what is in dispute here is the images Ewing posted on page 113, claiming them to be images of the version that will actually be built. Instead, he posted the original images that were first released back in 2007. MistermetAJ was the first to point out his inaccurate post. Those are not the correct images of the version that is actually being built, and will only confuse people who have not been following this project since the beginning.

Hudson11 · #**2268** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackster99

Yes I know, you posted the correct version. But what is in dispute here is the images Ewing posted on page 113, claiming them to be images of the 1050 foot version. Instead, he posted the original images that were released of the 1250 foot version. Those images will only confuse people who have not been following this project since the beginning.

they were released at the same time. They depict the same height.
they're just two different depictions and the first one was released later. Both are from different perspectives, so the tower might appear slightly taller in one of them. The tower in the second rendering certainly is not 1200'

mistermetAJ · #**2269** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 3:13 AM**

The images posted by Ewing on page 113 were already addressed by NYGuy on page 112.

Hudson11 · #**2270** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 3:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

The images posted by Ewing on page 113 were already addressed by NYGuy on page 112.

oh, just noticed that the comparison I posted is different from the one on that page. lol. Still doesn't look much taller to me, the biggest difference is the lighting and proportions.

jackster99 · #**2271** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

oh, just noticed that the comparison I posted is different from the one on that page. lol. Still doesn't look much taller to me, the biggest difference is the lighting and proportions.

All that comes out of this is that Ewing is a troll. He joined in october and already has 87 posts. He makes a comment on every project and every post, and his trolling should be stopped. Him sharing incorrect renders was the final straw for me. On top of that, Ewing was rude to mistermetAJ when mistermet merely pointed out the inaccuracies in the renders he posted

Hudson11 · #**2272** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 4:23 AM**

the one on the left is 1050', i'm no longer certain about the one on the right. They all look like different depictions of the 1050' tower to me. What's certain is that the design has been modified a bit from its original form, height notwithstanding. It just looks like to me that there's more bulk to the top.

edit: I edited out the pics from my previous posts to prevent clutter.

NYguy · #**2273** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 1:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

I know all about the building. I work nearby. Those are current renderings from Hines' and Adamson's websites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

The images posted by Ewing on page 113 were already addressed by NYGuy on page 112.

Apparently working "nearby" isn't nearly enough. Simply reading this thread could have saved a lot of wasted time and explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Welcome to the party.

A more current look...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjoanofarc

I guess that's the 200 ft taken off the top? :-/

Sorry to be repetitive, but a side-by-side is always nice.

Now everybody enjoy.

NYguy · #**2274** Posted **Nov 24, 2014, 4:00 AM**

bruce grant

Hudson11 · #**2275** Posted **Nov 28, 2014, 6:04 PM**

here's 1200 ft verre. Posting this not to further defunct the thread but to show context. 111 w 57th has the height and design to surpass Verre, but Verre will still be a jewel in the concrete jungle.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/future-i...163959219.html