NEW YORK | The Spiral (509 W. 34th) | 1,041 FT | 66 FLOORS

[The North One]

I actually really like this design, looks great.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Shwayze1994

Ingels really needs to quit trying to incorporate plants and trees into his designs. They just don't go together. Parks are on ground level for a reason, not in the sky.

This is absurd.

[NYguy]

I think of it in tems of this era's Pan Am (or MetLife)...a very MASSIVE building that while not being a signature icon on the skyline is still a very iconic building.







url]http://citynoise.org/article/10468[/url]



__
https://metalsinconstruction.org/design-brief/

[artspook]

obliged NYguy for your prolific efforts in these threads . .
also for the Pan-Am / Met Life Icon image (above) . . which is begging for a comment . .

It's one of the most reviled structures in NYC . . thanks to Paul Goldberger . .
(former NYT critic) & his continuous prissy rants against it . .
He hates the old trade center also . . It seems everything is "too big" for him . .
(I like reading him anyway) . . No architect or an architectural critic here . .

I happen to appreciate Pan-Am . . Its octagonal footprint stretched wide . .
causing the whole building to play in different shades of light . . sublime at times . .
the great texture of zillions of individual beehive windows . . an overall endless pattern
cantilevering . . thoughtfully segmented by porch-like "reveals" . .
recesses breaking up the endless waffle-iron mass horizontally . .
She cuts a broad profile from one viewpoint . . a narrow one from another . .
expert top-edge trim helped it sport one of the few NYC flat-tops that totally jives . .
It's a serious Megga-City juggernaut of a building . . every inch of it justified - I think -
by a confident yet subtle - accomplished architectural aesthetic . . It's so "building-ish"!

that can't be said for the oppressive banality of 55 Water . . which is just as massive . .
nor for "the Spiral" . . a building which seems to be posing as something else . .
Is it an awkward square-ish christmastree-like shape with pixellated garland ? . .
an austere stack of boxed presents with a cascading strand of razor-ribbon ? . .
a makeshift wedding centerpiece of sheer ice-blocks juvenilely chiseled into . .
bearing teethy lego-stairs . . displaying sprigs of parsley . .
Is it a theatrical ziggurat of flat-glass planes segmented by Ziegfeld Folly platforms . .
This all sounds like Ingels' naive genius . . if the thing weren't vibe-ing indecisively . .
between wannabe-weird and tame-conservative . .

[The North One]

You guys are being way to damn harsh, it's a cool looking tower and the garden balconies are incorporated well within the structure. The height is meaningless, maybe another taller tier would look nice but I don't think it needs it.

[artspook]

of course I see your point North One . . the Spiral is not without interest . .
enough for a background building . . like 4 & 7 WTC . . & shorter HY boxes . . but . .
There's a thousand feet of this thing . . New Yorkers deserve Best design at that height.
. . any thousand+ footer . . is a flagrant symbol of this reputable American city.

These peaks are not JUST for developers - architects - corporations - billionaire tenants
. . to unscrupulously enrich themselves . . There's civic responsibility . .
They have the constraint to live up to this great cultural capital's history . .
to honor NYC's lofty standards of excellence . . Screw their excuses & Low expectations.
This is no shamed "has-been" town . . New York City towering beacon.

[Ryanrule]

Too bad all those balconies will probably be off of executive offices.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

Too bad all those balconies will probably be off of executive offices.

It seems like the balconies and corresponding internal atriums are meant for "common" space.

[Barbarossa]

The "spiral." It's a junk box with trees on it.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

The "spiral." It's a junk box with trees on it.

A bit harsh and premature, don't you think?…

Granted opinions vary, we're still in the very early innings here - the design can be further modified and a lot will also ride on the quality of materials used.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

Too bad all those balconies will probably be off of executive offices.

I doubt that. That's not what it looks like even from current incomplete renderings.

[aquablue]

It's a filler for me. The real action is on the East Yards. That's where the decent designs are. This is just another corporate tower with a little gimicky window dressing but nothing much to write home about. Most people won't even notice this tower when it's done because from the street the building will appear pretty much like any other modernist box.

[Skyguy_7]

Not terrible. It would be a unique filler. Cool up close, but nothing special from a distance. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what Tishman's 1,800' "Hudson Spire" evolved into?

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

Not terrible. It would be a unique filler. Cool up close, but nothing special from a distance. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what Tishman's 1,800' "Hudson Spire" evolved into?

Yes, although that 1,800' figure was never official. It was advertised in the early stages of development to have that potential. Many here (incl. me) expected a tower between 1,300 and 1,500 feet since we are talking about a) Tishman b) Hudson Yards [no Nimbys] and c) 3 million sq ft. Should have been at least some 100 feet taller than 30 HY. Instead it's a "supertall filler" and the ~1,300 foot tall 30 HY tower is now the signature tower of HY. Tbh a real signature tower needs to be taller, way taller.

[chris08876]

This tower is more to meet the cities demand for office space versus a niche market such as ultra-luxury. For 3 billion, we can expect some state of the art working environments in terms of class-a space. It will also make a profit and if it where cheaper to build, they could go higher to have more available sq-ft, but initially it comes down to the economics of building such a tower, and making it happen in the first place, along with the potential risk involved in making it even bigger and not filling up as quickly as the developer would like.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by aquablue

It's a filler for me. The real action is on the East Yards. That's where the decent designs are. This is just another corporate tower with a little gimicky window dressing but nothing much to write home about. Most people won't even notice this tower when it's done because from the street the building will appear pretty much like any other modernist box.

Same feel for me. Oh well, something else to watch rise I suppose. It might even come out looking nicer than expected, hopefully (eg. 4WTC).

[Roadcruiser1]

I find this design to be stubby. It would have looked better if it were to say be like around 1,500 feet so the building would have some tapering to it, and a spire would have been an added bonus at that height, but instead it is just so short for that type of design it makes the building look fat.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by chris08876

This tower is more to meet the cities demand for office space versus a niche market such as ultra-luxury. For 3 billion, we can expect some state of the art working environments in terms of class-a space. It will also make a profit and if it where cheaper to build, they could go higher to have more available sq-ft, but initially it comes down to the economics of building such a tower, and making it happen in the first place, along with the potential risk involved in making it even bigger and not filling up as quickly as the developer would like.

That doesn't excuse the rather lame design for such a unique piece of land in Manhattan in terms of available space. The tower could have been something special but the developers have chosen to be chickens and build something ridiculously safe and boring. What a missed opportunity compared to what we were expecting. Shenzhen and China are where real innovation in architecture is happening. I don't see NY getting anything like we see proposed there. Even the towers at HY are rather safe designs.

[Vortex11]

Originally Posted by hunser

Yes, although that 1,800' figure was never official. It was advertised in the early stages of development to have that potential. Many here (incl. me) expected a tower between 1,300 and 1,500 feet since we are talking about a) Tishman b) Hudson Yards [no Nimbys] and c) 3 million sq ft. Should have been at least some 100 feet taller than 30 HY. Instead it's a "supertall filler" and the ~1,300 foot tall 30 HY tower is now the signature tower of HY. Tbh a real signature tower needs to be taller, way taller.

I agree. I can't help to think something taller may yet rise here. We shall see...

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by Vortex11

I agree. I can't help to think something taller may yet rise here. We shall see...

Yes, don't forget this is concept only, most likely will not be built.