NEW YORK | 220 Central Park So.| 952 FT | 70 FLOORS - Page 15

Duck From NY · #**281** Posted **Jan 29, 2014, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

Drawing has been made for the diagram section: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=55258
New York City diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=8

Thank you

Submariner · #**282** Posted **Jan 29, 2014, 11:36 PM**

How do you build models like these?

franktko · #**283** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner

How do you build models like these?

Practice, practice, practice... and some talent

Submariner · #**284** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktko

Practice, practice, practice... and some talent

But what is the program?

Submariner · #**285** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktko

Practice, practice, practice... and some talent

But what is the program?

CCs77 · #**286** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 4:11 PM**

Hehehe, they cheated in the rendering with the facade of the neighboring buildings, making them much more atractive.
Understandable, since the actual rear facades of those buildings are pretty ugly, BTW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Future

And now...(January 19, 2014)

koops65 · #**287** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 4:42 PM**

Thanks guys... I'm always happy to fill in a gap in the NYC diagram.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner

But what is the program?

There are many different programs used by the illustrators. Personally I use Paint.Net but Photoshop is also very popular. Even Microsoft Paint can be used, and that comes standard with Windows.

Back to the building... I'm hoping 950 feet is a minimum, and architectural elements bring this one over 1000, even though that will mean having to modify my drawing.

Submariner · #**288** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 7:00 PM**

Any chance they will reclad the backs of those buildings?

scalziand · #**289** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCs77

Hehehe, they cheated in the rendering with the facade of the neighboring buildings, making them much more atractive.
Understandable, since the actual rear facades of those buildings are pretty ugly, BTW.

Not really, that's the back of the 220CPS building that will actually BE on 220CPS, which will be new construction. The rest of the backs are hidden/disguised by strategically placed trees.

Maybe 210CPS has had its backside gussied up, but that's it.

NYguy · #**290** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner

Any chance they will reclad the backs of those buildings?

No. The neighboring building (fire escape) is also a landmark.

Submariner · #**291** Posted **Jan 30, 2014, 11:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

No. The neighboring building (fire escape) is also a landmark.

That's unfortunate.

FMIII · #**292** Posted **Feb 2, 2014, 2:42 PM**

That is NY as its best. Stern does know how to take inspiration from the past to build tomorrow's icons. This architect deserves a medal!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

chris08876 · #**293** Posted **Feb 2, 2014, 6:44 PM**

I wonder if they have a model for this, and the other towers on 57th Street approved, UC, or proposed in the Skyscaper Museum over in Lower Manhattan? I have't been there in over a year.

Design-mind · #**294** Posted **Feb 2, 2014, 11:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII

That is NY as its best. Stern does know how to take inspiration from the past to build tomorrow's icons. This architect deserves a medal!

I agree this is a fantastic looking tower. I am glad it is not all glass, but stone incorporated into this fine beast!

lakegz · #**295** Posted **Feb 3, 2014, 12:52 AM**

I guess I'm the only one thats lukewarm about this tower. I do like that it tips its hat to the classical NY silhouette and art deco style and the proportions are nice. I just think that it doesn't go all the way in that though. The building just seems a little 'light' and doesn't have the weight and wonder of those past towers of the 20s and 30s. I am aware that it is just a residential tower however.

Design-mind · #**296** Posted **Feb 3, 2014, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakegz

The building just seems a little 'light' and doesn't have the weight and wonder of those past towers of the 20s and 30s. I am aware that it is just a residential tower however.

I think you are correct when you say it seems light compared to past towers in the 20 and 30's, but that is due to window size. The windows here are huge, which in turn means less stone (less weight).

King DenCity · #**297** Posted **Feb 3, 2014, 2:22 AM**

^I think the lack of major setbacks and unique facade embellishments make an impact as well.

Guiltyspark · #**298** Posted **Feb 3, 2014, 2:46 AM**

I am really excited about this one. This is the type of tower (with the tapers) that would lend itself to having an elegant spire ala ESB. Unlike some of the modern towers that are just having one tacked on.

M. Incandenza · #**299** Posted **Feb 3, 2014, 5:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King DenCity

^I think the lack of major setbacks and unique facade embellishments make an impact as well.

Yeah, I agree. For what it's trying to do, I think it's a little under-ornamented (and I'd say the same of the Park Place building too). But it's a very typical postmodern design in that it seems to be making the broad gestures of traditional design without really following through on the detailing, which leads to a bit of a cartoonish look. (I say that, though, as someone who likes this building, on balance, and likes postmodernism in general.)

FMIII · #**300** Posted **Feb 3, 2014, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakegz

I guess I'm the only one thats lukewarm about this tower. I do like that it tips its hat to the classical NY silhouette and art deco style and the proportions are nice. I just think that it doesn't go all the way in that though. The building just seems a little 'light' and doesn't have the weight and wonder of those past towers of the 20s and 30s. I am aware that it is just a residential tower however.

I agree with you. However, considering how rare it is to have a planned supertall reminiscent of this era in NYC, I can only applaud this project.

As Incandenza mentioned it, I don't think that the architect's goal was to design a perfect replica of the 30's. He just took inspiration from it. Besides, as usual, the architect had to adapt the design to the project's constraints. I guess that the lot size and air rights prevented him to come up with something more imposing.

I guess you already know all of this. What I am just trying to say is that, considering how tough it is for a great project like this one to withstand reality, on has to admit it's already a miracle that this gorgeous tower is about to break ground.