You know, I remember really thinking I was going to hate this building. I’m sure there’s a post somewhere in this thread of me trashing it (although I think that was before the design was finalized). I have to say though, I’m impressed with how it came out. Is the deign as daring or unique as 53W53 or Steinway? Not necessarily. But all in all I think it’s a very high-quality building, worthy of its place on the skyline, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it looks with the blue stuff removed and the lighting scheme installed.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
We are now seeing 3 of the 5 tallest buildings in the country nearing completion, all within months of each other, if not weeks - Central Park Tower, 111 West 57th (Steinway), and One Vanderbilt. That's impressive. Not even the Empire State/Chrysler/40 Wall trio was as tightly spaced in time.
Decided to check out the finishing touches on the crowns, the most visible parts of these towers on the skyline.
This one, Central Park Tower, has the highest roof height in the country. I think it's an ok tower for anywhere else, but no really something that should define the New York skyline. Hoping something taller comes along in midtown. The facade is very nice though.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
You know, I remember really thinking I was going to hate this building. I’m sure there’s a post somewhere in this thread of me trashing it (although I think that was before the design was finalized). I have to say though, I’m impressed with how it came out. Is the deign as daring or unique as 53W53 or Steinway? Not necessarily. But all in all I think it’s a very high-quality building, worthy of its place on the skyline, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it looks with the blue stuff removed and the lighting scheme installed.
yeah same here. i dont think i ever trashed it, but i’m sure i whined about the crown or lack of a spire lol. here we are are and yes i am very pleased and impressed with it. the quality of the materials looks great and i really like the setbacks and the cantilever. the crown is very slick and i wonder now how it will look lit up, but you can already tell that feature, if it exists, would be a very nice sight in the skyline.
^ Yeah, people do have a tendency to settle for what they can get. After all, it's not like the design is going to change. But as far as I can tell, this building looks exactly as expected from the renderings. The glass does in fact look nice. The crown has the exact detail from the renderings. No surprises here for me.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
This building is fine in a world where we got ~5-10 new very tall buildings all at once, and we can afford to have boring 1500' buildings now. Had this gone up 10 years ago people might have been more disappointed this didn't do more.
I'm still of the opinion that just about any other developer/architect would have put up a better or more interesting building given the same program.
This building is fine in a world where we got ~5-10 new very tall buildings all at once, and we can afford to have boring 1500' buildings now. Had this gone up 10 years ago people might have been more disappointed this didn't do more.
I'm still of the opinion that just about any other developer/architect would have put up a better or more interesting building given the same program.
I think this building would be perfectly fine somewhere else, particularly in a city that doesn’t have a skyline legacy. But to be fair to Barnett, he was leaning towards a better design, even went as far as filing for construction. But then came Nordstrom and 220 CPS. That changed the game, and had the city not approved the cantilever, Barnett insisted the entire eastern wall would be what you see below the cantilever. So yeah, it could’ve been worse. But that doesn’t change things. As far as how thin it is, well it’s a residential tower on a skyline with other thin residentials. Most of the supertalls rising on the skyline range from being balky to too balky. So I don’t mind the slender throwbacks.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
The architects have stated all along, that they designed this tower from the inside out, not outside in. As disappointed as some of us are looking up at this thing, I have no doubt that the experience from the inside for those for whom it was built/intended, will be nothing short of spectacular. Sigh...
The architects have stated all along, that they designed this tower from the inside out, not outside in. As disappointed as some of us are looking up at this thing, I have no doubt that the experience from the inside for those for whom it was built/intended, will be nothing short of spectacular. Sigh...
Oh, no doubt about that. I’m sighing with you, because I say the same thing about all of the large new office towers going up. A lot of people don’t like them, but they are designed with the tenants in mind. And compared to the towers they are leaving behind, spectacular places to be moving into. That being said, they aren’t 1,500 ft buildings. There were obvious limitations with this site, as I just mentioned above. But there were limitatations with Steinway and 53w53. You can make it work on both ends. Especially if you’re gonna rise 1,500 gd ft on the world’s most famous skyline. That’s all I’m saying. And they obviously knew that, and tried to mitigate this design somewhat with a spire. But it is what it is. For all we know, Barnett could be planning a taller tower. There is still the possibility of Tower Fifth rising, a building I’m sure will have the best of amenities for it’s tenants. Somehow though, I doubt that will be enough for it’s critics. And maybe it shouldn’t be.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
I think this building would be perfectly fine somewhere else, particularly in a city that doesn’t have a skyline legacy.
I would LOVE to see this exact design and height somewhere out in the Great Plains. Put this thing in Des Moines!
I do understand the disappointment that this tower doesn't have a more interesting design for the New York skyline, but personally, the more I see of it as it nears completion, the more I genuinely like it. Especially those Golden Hour shots, of course, but even just appreciating the details and massing from different angles, the building is really growing on me.
I would LOVE to see this exact design and height somewhere out in the Great Plains. Put this thing in Des Moines!
I bet.
Quote:
I do understand the disappointment that this tower doesn't have a more interesting design for the New York skyline, but personally, the more I see of it as it nears completion, the more I genuinely like it. Especially those Golden Hour shots, of course, but even just appreciating the details and massing from different angles, the building is really growing on me.
I don't doubt it. It's still the wrong building in the wrong place. But I'm not convinced this will be the tallest in midtown. It reminds me of when 432 Park went up, and people complained about it because it was so tall. Seems like quaint times now. Put up one or two taller and better designed towers on the skyline, and this building is an afterthought. Still doesn't take away from this design being what it is though, no way around it. I'm not gonna lie because it's the tallest on the skyline. It could be 2,000 ft, and the verdict would be the same. I love height. 53w53 should have been given every inch of it's design. An amazing design, but it still would have fell 300 ft shorter than this one. Of course, I will defend Barnett's right to build this tower as is. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on criticism. Just like that building Downtown, with the enormous spire and symbolism.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
CPT's design (with spire) would have worked well for Bloomberg Tower. Have the cantilever over the oval motor court, and offices in the podium instead of a department store.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
I've posted some of these before, but now that the crown is nearing completion, it's interesting to go back and look at what remains, if anything, from the previous design. We've seen other versions of this tower, From Foster, SHoP, etc. I didn't like SHoP's design for this tower too much, one of the few things from them I didn't like. Foster's was ok. But those were different versions of this tower from different architects that didn't make the cut. The graphics below are designs from the current team, and were filed with the DOB, meaning they were what was initially going to be built. There are usually modifications to buildings, even as they rise, but usually nothing major.
This first set was still 1,550 ft...
1. _
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. _
This is pretty much the current design, minus the obvious spire.
10. _
12. _
14.
15.
16.
17.
You can see how it was to be integrated into the crown, and how some of that element still remains.
18.
19.
20.
21.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
^ These diagrams are informative. I like the ladder-like structure attached to the spire. I have no idea what it was designed to do, but visually it helps integrate the spire with the rest of the building. I find that the spire plus the "ladder" look a bit like a miniature version of the whole building.
Too bad the spire is no longer happening, but on the bright side, the roof height used to be only 1527', and now it's 1550'.
^ These diagrams are informative. I like the ladder-like structure attached to the spire. I have no idea what it was designed to do, but visually it helps integrate the spire with the rest of the building. I find that the spire plus the "ladder" look a bit like a miniature version of the whole building.
I'm surprised they didn't change that portion of the crown to look like the rest of it. It was designed to integrate the spire. I guess at that point, it simply didn't matter.
The facade at least will be a nice, clean reflection...
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Prev
_
_
_
_
Linear Mode
