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

[THE BIG APPLE]

^If this is true which it seems like it is, you've got to be fk'n kidding me. This is disgusting. You can't get to a more unimaginative scale than this. A two year old would be able to conjure up something better than this. I STILL think a shard-like design would be perfect for this site.

[NYguy]

The rendering that I've described has finally been released in the WSJ.

Here's a small image. Does anyone have a subscription?

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-QE084_CIM_fo_C_20111018212632.jpg

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-real-estate-homes.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_realestate_main


COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
OCTOBER 19, 2011

New York Placing Tallest Order

BY CRAIG KARMIN A Los Angeles real-estate company founded by two former Israeli paratroopers and a Drexel Burnham Lambert executive has emerged as one of the country's most active property buyers. Now it is poised to unveil plans for its main showpiece: New York's tallest residential tower.
CIM Group last year snapped up a prized Park Avenue development site in Midtown Manhattan for $305 million, well below the land's value during the boom years. Developers have considered it one of the most attractive sites in the world because of its location at the heart of New York City.
The firm and its partner, ...


The article says its 432 Park and will be more than 1300 ft.

[Onn]

Here you go guys!

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BL781_CIM_G_20111018184232.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203658804576639543415136636.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[babybackribs2314]

FANTASTIC, Robert!!

While it's not awesome, it's WAY better than the massing model. Given what's to come along CPS, this will look awkward if it's one of the first completed with One57, but by 2020 it will have several companions, although this will likely serve as the Eastern anchor to the new CPS skyline for quite some time.

[Don098]

It's not a disaster, but it's not good. 1300 feet needs a signature look, and this is startling unimaginative. They could have at least created some setbacks a la Burj Dubai/The Wizard of Oz's Emerald City...sheesh.

[NYC2ATX]

This is pretty ok I reckon.

This makes me miss when people built buildings with spires. Flat-topped buildings tend to look more economical than design-savvy at times, and I think this is a prime example of that.

[NYguy]

This is pretty ok I reckon.

This makes me miss when people built buildings with spires. Flat-topped buildings tend to look more economical than design-savvy at times, and I think this is a prime example of that.


It's not great, but it's not terrible either. These days I tend to look at what can be built rather than what makes a pretty rendering. Even now it's not a 100% certainty that this will be. Still, if it reached the height it does by spire, there'd no doubt be complaints about that.

[hunser]

Still need to see more renders, especially the ones showing details of the facade. Aslo, I hope it's at least 1 313ft tall, so it would break the 400m mark. :)

[lakegz]

That render is confusing. They make it seem like the building is right behind the GM building, when it is really 3 blocks away. Can't wait to see some up-close renderings of the facade so we can see the buildings textures.

[Zapatan]

I LOVE IT!!!!


Hope well find out the exact height soon

[RobertWalpole]

Aren't you guys happy that I tempered your expectations well in advance? With all of the news coverage regarding the height and the prime location, we were all expecting a 400m version of Torre Verre. I was certainly disappointed when I learned what this will look like months ago.

This rendering is crappier than what had been planned. The cubes were supposed to sit upon drum-shaped mechanical floors, hence the clue -- the Little Drummer Boy is feeling Cuban.

[Zapatan]

I don't know why the fact that it's a box upsets so many people, look at the AON center, old WTC, Sears tower, Chase tower (houston) They are all awesome supertalls.

Tapering buildings are always less powerful looking up top IMO, eventhough than can be very cool looking... plus if you want tapering look at tower verre or 1WTC

looooove this building, just what I could hope for!

[hunser]

Aren't you guys happy that I tempered your expectations well in advance? With all of the news coverage regarding the height and the prime location, we were all expecting a 400m version of Torre Verre. I was certainly disappointed when I learned what this will look like months ago.

This rendering is crappier than what had been planned. The cubes were supposed to sit upon drum-shaped mechanical floors, hence the clue -- the Little Drummer Boy is feeling Cuban.

It's a real pity, Tower Verre should have been 400m and this dull box 320m! But no, the best design in like 40 years gets a height reduction... :hell:

I don't know why the fact that it's a box upsets so many people, look at the AON center, old WTC, Sears tower, Chase tower (houston) They are all awesome supertalls.

Tapering buildings are always less powerful looking up top IMO, eventhough than can be very cool looking... plus if you want tapering look at tower verre or 1WTC

looooove this building, just what I could hope for!

The thing is, it's way too skinny to have a powerful effect on the skyline. Actually when I think about it, it's maybe better that way 'cause we certainly don't need a 400m old WTC- style monster at this location.

[Oura]

This is gonna be ugly at street level with all the blank walls around it and the awkward shape of the plaza.

[NYguy]

I'm ready for it to be built already, it would be the new tallest of Midtown as of now, and help anchor the east side skyline against all of the planned west side developments...still, some sort of crown (even a mechanical box) would help.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/138975123/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/138975124/original.jpg

[yankeesfan1000]

Not crazy about it, looks like it was designed with legos, I mean come on. An official renders could swing me, but probably not. I'm hoping there are some details to the facade that we're not seeing, like a Setai-esque window arrangement or something to make this interesting.

I think this increases the need for Tower Verre to get built, and for Extell's other 57th St site to house an interesting design. I could live with this being a sort of compliment, or aside to the more unique designs of One57, TV, and hopefully 225 W57th.

[NYguy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203658804576639543415136636.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The plans for the project, named 432 Park Ave., call for 128 condos with more than 12-foot high ceilings; a 5,000 square foot, partially covered, driveway to ensure privacy; and amenities like golf training facilities and private dining and screening rooms. The total price tag: more than $1 billion.

There is no scheduled completion date, and the project still faces challenges amid an uncertain economic and market environment. Crucially, CIM needs a construction loan of as much as $700 million. That isn't an easy type of financing to obtain these days, with European banks cutting back because of their debt problems and only a small handful of U.S. banks willing to lend.

Avi Shemesh, a CIM founding principal, said the firm is confident it will get a loan. "We have longstanding relationships with lenders," Mr. Shemesh said. "We anticipate our construction financing to be in place well in advance of any sort of deadline." Even with financing, CIM's tower of Park Avenue trails a competing 1,000-foot residential project on West 57th street from Extell Development Co. That skyscraper is nearly 30 stories above ground and counts an Abu Dhabi fund as a partner.

[LeftCoaster]

Pretty meh, but it will look damn tall given the vertical lines and slim massing of the building

[Dale]

Feel like I wasted $2 on today's WSJ. The gist of the article was a lot of foreboding about the prospects of landing financing.

[RobertWalpole]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203658804576639543415136636.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_MIDDLETopNews

[Lecom]

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/19/vinolys_superscraper_will_reach_1300_feet_cost_1_billion.php

Vinoly's Superscraper Will Reach 1,300 Feet, Cost $1 Billion

http://ny.curbed.com/MI-BL781_CIM_G_20111018184232.jpg

Here now, some real figures for the city's soon-to-be-tallest residential tower, the CIM Group-developed, Rafael Vinoly-designed Drake Hotel-killer in Midtown East. The Wall Street Journal reports that architectural plans reveal a "1,300-foot tall, slender condo and retail complex" with 128 condos that feature 12-foot high ceilings, plus a "5,000 square foot, partially covered, driveway to ensure privacy and amenities like golf training facilities and private dining and screening rooms." Total cost: $1 billion. Completion date: who the hell knows! And hmmm, no mention of that glass glass cube.

Some previous rumormongering put the number at 1,420 feet, and while we now know that's a bit lofty, the vague rendering in the Journal's piece isn't far off from that WiredNY thread (boxy, slender, symmetrical square windows down the four facades).

http://ny.curbed.com/imagined%20vinoly%20tower%20432%20park%20avenue.jpg

And to erase any further remainder of the Drake Hotel, the project's official address has changed from the old 50 East 57th Street to the new 432 Park Avenue, scrubbed clean of any Harry Macklowe/demolition associations.

[uaarkson]

I like it quite a bit, actually. Cube on cube designs have always fascinated me thanks to the tallest in my old town (Flint, MI).

I think the facade will be the deciding factor in determining whether this ends up as a classic or more along the lines of the skyline-ruining boxes of lower Manhattan. Either way, you all must remember that it will be 1000+ ft. of solid glass and steel; i.e. a true supertall. And considering how thin it is, a strikingly vertical one at that.

[RobertWalpole]

Feel like I wasted $2 on today's WSJ. The gist of the article was a lot of foreboding about the prospects of landing financing.

This will be funded. Rudin's far less glamorous project in the Village recently procured a $600m, bank-funded, construction loan.

With respect to funding prospects, CIM stated the following in the WSJ article:

Avi Shemesh, a CIM founding principal, said the firm is confident it will get a loan. “We have longstanding relationships with lenders,” Mr. Shemesh said. “We anticipate our construction financing to be in place well in advance of any sort of deadline.”

[Roadcruiser1]

With a design like that it does remind me of the Twin Towers.

[Urbana]

I like it myself, simplistic charm.

Additionally, I would also like to apologize to RobertWalpole for my harsh criticism of his claims a few pages back. He was spot on.

[RobertWalpole]

I like it myself, simplistic charm.

Additionally, I would also like to apologize to RobertWalpole for my harsh criticism of his claims a few pages back. He was spot on.

No problem.

Anyway, it's been value-engineered. The drum-shaped mechnical floors between each cube are gone.

[uaarkson]

How can you tell? Have you seen other renders that we haven't?

[RobertWalpole]

No, but as I stated a few months ago, I colleague saw the model, and he described it to me in great detail, which was the basis for my initial posts describing it.

[aquablue]

It's awful. Compared to towers going up in Asia and Europe, this is a boring throwback to the 20th century. It will do nothing to modernize the boxy midtown skyline at all. Height isn't everything and NY needs to break out of this modernist mold. Alas, it appears that the zoning system combined with greedy philistine developers will continue to produce dull box after dull box.

[UrbanImpact]

It's awful. Compared to towers going up in Asia and Europe, this is a boring throwback to the 20th century. It will do nothing to modernize the boxy midtown skyline at all. Height isn't everything and NY needs to break out of this modernist mold. Alas, it appears that the zoning system combined with greedy philistine developers will continue to produce dull box after dull box.

Maybe you should build a tower with your money and spend the extra cash to embellish it and make it taller even though it's not economically feasible doing so. ;)

[STR]

Curbed has a bigger image.

Robert, if you want to post the render I sent you, assuming you still have it, go for it. I won't be home until 10 to do it myself.

[RobertWalpole]

Curbed has a bigger image.

Robert, if you want to post the render I sent you, assuming you still have it, go for it. I won't be home until 10 to do it myself.

STR,

They eliminated the drum-shaped mechanical floors. Therefore, unfortunately, your render no longer applies.

[JayPro]

@Aqua:
Meh...I dunno...I've seen a lot of chintzy-ass supertalls going up throughout the Asian continent; and I'm not too sure that the Americas should follow that trend.
China/Taiwan has a ton of really kitsch going on.
Dubai has a disturbingly phallic obsession with theirs.
Even London and Paris have gone somewhat overboard, with Moscow sprouting a hypermodern scraper patch as if out of Nowhere.

My point here is that what we're seeing with this (hopefully) official render is a conservatism that's IMO a good thing.

The cube on cube thing (like the cancelled 80 South but rectangular and hella slender) looks rather appropriate for the structure's planned height. The "gaps" between them give the illusion of open space. IMO this will complement One57 very nicely, especially this one's unadorned facade with the latter's flashier look.

Thank you Robert for making this whole waiting experience a good bit more than entertaining. I'm not disappointed at all.

It's just that we'll hafta get used to a legitimate supertall in this area, which may or may not create a visual imbalance depending on vantage point. Then again, One57 and TV should address that.

@uaarkson;

That's just it, re: the facade as difference-maker. The spaced-cube design is just perfect for this tower's dimensions...Sure, it'll be a gigantic plus if the facade scores some aesthetics points; but it'll be secondary.
Also (@everyone else) KIM that the architecture for this stretch of Midtown has been historically conservative...at least geometry--wise. Boxes will dominate because of a long-established precedence of architectural demand, so to speak.

[kingcity]

it looks like the old rendering

[manchester united]

OK, it will be more than 1300 feet, but how many floors it will have ?

[gramsjdg]

My only problem with this design is the square windows :yuck:

I think a better facade would be horizontal lines only (between floors) with the glass being curtain wall style (seamless vertical lines between panes).

[Roadcruiser1]

What really concerns me is the wind. Since this building is in a box shape it would be vulnerable to sway a lot especially up at the top. There better be some sort of counterweight or something up there to handle those winds.

[RobertWalpole]

@Aqua:
Thank you Robert for making this whole waiting experience a good bit more than entertaining. I'm not disappointed at all.

My pleasure. Had they not value-engineered the drum-shaped mechanical floors between the six-story cubes, my hint of "Little Drummer Boy says I'm feeling Cuban" would have made sense in retrospect.

Maybe that element is still there and is simply not visible in the lame rendering.

[aquablue]

@Aqua:
Meh...I dunno...I've seen a lot of chintzy-ass supertalls going up throughout the Asian continent; and I'm not too sure that the Americas should follow that trend.
China/Taiwan has a ton of really kitsch going on.
Dubai has a disturbingly phallic obsession with theirs.
Even London and Paris have gone somewhat overboard, with Moscow sprouting a hypermodern scraper patch as if out of Nowhere.

My point here is that what we're seeing with this (hopefully) official render is a conservatism that's IMO a good thing.

The cube on cube thing (like the cancelled 80 South but rectangular and hella slender) looks rather appropriate for the structure's planned height. The "gaps" between them give the illusion of open space. IMO this will complement One57 very nicely, especially this one's unadorned facade with the latter's flashier look.

Thank you Robert for making this whole waiting experience a good bit more than entertaining. I'm not disappointed at all.

It's just that we'll hafta get used to a legitimate supertall in this area, which may or may not create a visual imbalance depending on vantage point. Then again, One57 and TV should address that.

@uaarkson;

That's just it, re: the facade as difference-maker. The spaced-cube design is just perfect for this tower's dimensions...Sure, it'll be a gigantic plus if the facade scores some aesthetics points; but it'll be secondary.
Also (@everyone else) KIM that the architecture for this stretch of Midtown has been historically conservative...at least geometry--wise. Boxes will dominate because of a long-established precedence of architectural demand, so to speak.

Really, more conservatism is a good thing for box laden NYC? You would take this over something like the Pinnacle or Shard in London, or the interesting designs going up in Shanghai or Moscow? NY could have a curve now and again, it wouldn't hurt. More boxes just lead to a duller skyline IMO.

[Roadcruiser1]

I don't think boxes are a bad design for a skyscraper. Look at how impressive the Twin Towers used to be. If you put the South Tower at the site of 432 Park Avenue then you would get the basics of what this building here might look like.

[manchester united]

Only 128 condos ?

[RobertWalpole]

Only 128 condos ?

I think that One57 has only 97.

[JayPro]

Really, more conservatism is a good thing for box laden NYC? You would take this over something like the Pinnacle or Shard in London, or the interesting designs going up in Shanghai or Moscow? NY could have a curve now and again, it wouldn't hurt. More boxes just lead to a duller skyline IMO.

Let me recouch what I tried to say before:

I definitely agree that the PanAmerican/Australian tendency towards a boxy skyline can bring tears of rage to one who yearns for at least a soupçon of innovative presence.

On the one hand, modern London construction is valiantly--and successfully--holding back the metro area's legions of anachronistic nay-sayers. On the other, I just don't think that projects like the severed nose that is Paris' Tour Phare or the dense, Freudian thicket of gilded, cylindrical and round-cornered Pez dispensers going up in Dubai IMO do anything for me.

As jaw-drop impressive as it is, Moscow's growing City Center seems out of place with its environs...and some the towers almost seem non-complementary to one another. And while Frankfurt-am-Main has gravely disappointed (me at least) with its lukewarmth and lack of vision one way or the other, other Euro cities like Warsaw, Madrid, Rotterdam, AMsterdam and Milan are quietly catching up and nicely at that.

Then again with world economies as they are nowadays, it is to me a marvel indeed that we're having this discussion at all.

Over in Asia, Shanghai has led the lengthy parade of cities in Red China that all too often cross the line between groundbreaking and just plain tacky. Tokyo, Manila, Bangkok, KL are hit-and-miss at a proportion that shifts from 80-20% to 90-10% on the hit side.

So where does that leave us...given the news of this tower and where specifically it is set to rise?

All of what I've just said is why, solely within the context of this building, a modicum of "conservatism" might not end up being a bad thing.

Using the cities I mentioned before, the act of balancing a country's "architectural tolerance threshold", if you will, with the vision of an individual "starchitect" is more of a tightrope walk than a lot of people might think.
And then, of course, there's the question of whether the structure plan keeps in mind the meteorological considerations of the area. Will it be earthquake-resistant according to current standards? Will it teeter-totter precariously in anything less than tropical storm-force winds?

I should hope that these questions have been answered in this building at least at a rudimentary level. Somehow, I don't believe that a supertall of this nature can just be "cart blanched" without meeting guidelines that precisely meet and hopefully exceed their expressed demands.

Anyway, let's not forget either that Tower Verre---even in it's dumbed-down heightwise state---continues the new precedent BofA started, and will stake its claim on the skyline in no uncertain terms. Even One57 can't really be called a box, as it's already proving to be a wonderful example of how to build on and around what's available, more so than with it.
Plus, 250 E 57th and the subtle-twisty Girasole are next on queue, with Mr. Libeskind's 1 Madison Avenue still a question mark. Any way you slice it, the initial mold-breaker that is BofA will have more geometrically complex brothers and Sisters within the next decade.

[babybackribs2314]

People are also forgetting that the building is on Park Avenue, a road almost completely lined with box buildings. Park is not where you go for cutting-edge design, unless you're looking on the inside (and yes, this will be cutting edge--how else could something so slender rise so tall? It's like one of the twins but 1/4 of the girth).

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BL781_CIM_G_20111018184232.jpg
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BL781_CIM_G_20111018184232.jpg

Chop off 600 feet and id like it....

[UrbanImpact]

What really concerns me is the wind. Since this building is in a box shape it would be vulnerable to sway a lot especially up at the top. There better be some sort of counterweight or something up there to handle those winds.

Structural engineers have the wind in mind (especially since there are building codes) when drawing these buildings.

[aquablue]

If they had kept those drum elements that Mr. Walpole described, I think it would have turned out far more interesting. I am hoping that this is cancelled or delayed and a better proposal comes along here, because it is such a wasted opportunity.

[RobertWalpole]

It's dawning upon me that this might be somewhat of a massing model that CIM released to show the approximate height. The drums are an integral part of the design.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

It's dawning upon me that this might be somewhat of a massing model that CIM released to show the approximate height. The drums are an integral part of the design.

Are you sure though...?

[NYguy]

As jaw-drop impressive as it is, Moscow's growing City Center seems out of place with its environs...and some the towers almost seem non-complementary to one another. And while Frankfurt-am-Main has gravely disappointed (me at least) with its lukewarmth and lack of vision one way or the other, other Euro cities like Warsaw, Madrid, Rotterdam, AMsterdam and Milan are quietly catching up and nicely at that.

Over in Asia, Shanghai has led the lengthy parade of cities in Red China that all too often cross the line between groundbreaking and just plain tacky. Tokyo, Manila, Bangkok, KL are hit-and-miss at a proportion that shifts from 80-20% to 90-10% on the hit side.

Folks, let's just keep the discussion on what we have here, and not get all over the place.


I expeced there would be much debate about this one, some like it, some hate it. I don't think I've seen any that are absoulutely in love with it yet (contrasted with the original unveiling of the Tower Verre design). But I do believe that even if built as appears in the rendering, more will come to like it in time. Buildings have a way of developing their own personality, and this one would be one of Manhattan's most visible skyscrapers. One thing you can say though - like it or hate it - this tower will be a slender, soaring skyscraper.
Fits the area.


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/33133/1319047-T1200800.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/33133/1319048-T1200800.jpg

[RobertWalpole]

Are you sure though...?

No. The drums may have been value-engineered out. However, I'm starting to think that it may be. However, the drums would be the only missing element.

[Zapatan]

I keep failing to understand what the problem with a box is, it's a nice blast from the past.

I agree it could look a little better, but a 1300+ foot box is just what NYC needs for it's skyline.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

I keep failing to understand what the problem with a box is, it's a nice blast from the past.

I agree it could look a little better, but a 1300+ foot box is just what NYC needs for it's skyline.

my problem is that NY is still waiting for the future...I can only pray that Ghery was the start of a new era for this city.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/SWFC-night_shutterstock_188.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/SWFC-night_shutterstock_188.jpg

[Dac150]

^^^ That's very inaccurate; there are many examples of 'futuristic' / 'artsy' architecture built or being built throughout the city.

In the context of that part of Park Avenue, this design is very appropriate. It's certainly not revolutionary, however the height is the eye catcher. A handsome facade would definitely help.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Folks, let's just keep the discussion on what we have here, and not get all over the place.


I expeced there would be much debate about this one, some like it, some hate it. I don't think I've seen any that are absoulutely in love with it yet (contrasted with the original unveiling of the Tower Verre design). But I do believe that even if built as appears in the rendering, more will come to like it in time. Buildings have a way of developing their own personality, and this one would be one of Manhattan's most visible skyscrapers. One thing you can say though - like it or hate it - this tower will be a slender, soaring skyscraper.
Fits the area.

You're correct and incorrect. Buildings do have a way of being liked OVER TIME. But even if you love a good building or a bad building, you sit and think about your favorites for example Tower Verre when built will instantly be loved forever and people will sit and think I love this building and there can't be anything better that can go on this site. When people look at the completed 432 Park Ave they hate it at first. But then they start liking it over time and sit and think I love this building but something better could've gone on the site. Get the point. You're both right and wrong.

[599GTO]

The design is nothing special at all. Even One Madison Park looks pretty in comparison, despite them both being tall boxes.

I just hope it's taller than 1WTC to the roof.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

^^^ That's very inaccurate; there are many examples of 'futuristic' / 'artsy' architecture built or being built throughout the city.

In the context of that part of Park Avenue, this design is very appropriate. It's certainly not revolutionary, however the height is the eye catcher. A handsome facade would definitely help.

When you think about it its not. We do have a multitude of beautiful innovative towers though i feel like as of right now NY is being cheated out of supertalls that are amazing feats of architecture. The Hudson yards...boxes....Girasole...nothing to write home about....15 Penn Plaza, nothing we havnt seen before considering that its a Pelli building, Carnegie 57, pretty but nothing monumental, WTC 1 a big box with tapering sides...wow amazing, 3 WTC was value engineered into a bland box with picks on the top and now this..a giant box to go with the other countless boxes in the city.

I'm not saying that any of these buildings are bad actually most of them are quite beautiful though they lack the edge in design to gain the praise that certain buildings around the world are getting. 2 WTC, Manhattan West (lets hope it wasnt cut down) and Tower Verre are perhaps the only truly innovative supertalls proposed at the moment.

Yes New York has great testaments to the contemporary era, heres a few just to name some.

IAC HQ

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/new_york/inter_activcorp_headquarters_sg020808.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/new_york/inter_activcorp_headquarters_sg020808.jpg


The Machine

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9gmCd4xrE_g/TWo88jAjVcI/AAAAAAAABps/QjeBY06bw8M/glass+replacement+building.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9gmCd4xrE_g/TWo88jAjVcI/AAAAAAAABps/QjeBY06bw8M/glass+replacement+building.jpg

The Beekman Tower

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2320/5731427207_96f9b857cf_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2320/5731427207_96f9b857cf_o.jpg

Bank of America

http://www.ourtravelpics.com/newyork_2/newyork_2_061.jpg
http://www.ourtravelpics.com/newyork_2/newyork_2_061.jpg

etc...

All great buildings though my point is that this influx of supertalls has really proved to be a let down when compared to whats going on in developing nations and im tired of making excuses for developers who dont care about what they erect on the skyline. Its either great architecture or its not. New York deserves better than this....

[Alliance]

^^^ I think all the excess images of non-related buildings clutter the thread.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

^^^ I think all the excess images of non-related buildings clutter the thread.

I think its necessary to remind people what great architecture is in case they've forgotten. Besides that will be my last reminder.

[gramsjdg]

I wish you could have cropped out Conde Nast in that photo of BOA

My eyes are burning :yuck:

[aquablue]

Yes, it is a little sad for NYC when you compare Shanghai Tower and SWFC to WTC1 and this thing. No to mention comaparing the Shard and Pinnacle to NY's offerings. NY needs something ground breaking and 21st century. Not even the Ghery tower is really that, it is more of a throwback. The boxy form is the problem which seems to never change, probably due to NY layout, economics and zoning laws. We probably will never see curvy organic scrapers.

[RobertWalpole]

....Yes, it is a little sad for NYC when you compare Shanghai Tower and SWFC to WTC1 and this thing. No to mention comaparing the Shard and Pinnacle to NY's offerings. NY needs something ground breaking and 21st century. Not even the Ghery tower is really that, it is more of a throwback. The boxy form is the problem which seems to never change, probably due to NY layout, economics and zoning laws. We probably will never see curvy organic scrapers.

That's a groundless statement. The Shard and Pinnacle are two buildings amidst a lot of boxy crap in London. You forget that the vast bulk of London's new office buildings are boxy, featureless groundscrapers. Not to mention, Canary Wharf is a monument to mediocrity.

You also conveniently forget Gehry's 8 Spruce St., BofA, Hearst, Bear Stearns, One57, Goldman, etc., let alone WTC 2 which will be one of the world's greatest skyscrapers.

[uaarkson]

I'm entirely positive these comments are going to start disappearing over the next 5 years.

Who cares if Shanghai builds shit like the SWFC and Shanghai tower when 90% of the rest of the city is 50 year old commie blocks? Maybe NYC doesn't have any wacky twisting skyscrapers of tomorrow. What it does have puts it in a league of its own. I'm so sick of people pretending that any city without an empty glass dildo is "stuck in the past."

[pico44]

That's a groundless statement. The Shard and Pinnacle are two buildings amidst a lot of boxy crap in London. You forget that the vast bulk of London's new office buildings are boxy, featureless groundscrapers. Not to mention, Canary Wharf is a monument to mediocrity.

You also conveniently forget Gehry's 8 Spruce St., BofA, Hearst, Bear Stearns, One57, Goldman, etc., let alone WTC 2 which will be one of the world's greatest skyscrapers.


Don't feed the troll Robert.

[aquablue]

Don't feed the troll Robert.

I am not a troll. I have an opinion, how is that being a troll, excuse me? So now you will call anyone with a different opinion a troll I suppose?

The fact that I would like to see innovative architecture rather than more boxes does not make a troll.

[Crawford]

The fact that I would like to see innovative architecture rather than more boxes does not make a troll.

Manhattan is on a grid. By definition, non-box architecture damages the streetwall.

Also, Manhattan real estate development is motivated by profit, not oil-shiek pissing contests or communist party insider deals. Boxy floorplans make the most $.

So the reasons you don't see a ton of non-box floorplates in Manhattan are because it harms the urbanity and makes little financial sense.

And Park Avenue is the penultimate classic Manhattan glass box and limestone building corridor. It makes little sense to build some weird developing-world fantasy directly on Park. If you wanted something like that, Hudson Yards makes more sense.

[antinimby]

Manhattan is on a grid. By definition, non-box architecture damages the streetwall.Not true at all.

Tower Verre for example is not a box and yet manages to maintain the streetwall.

The multitudes of McSams by Kaufman and Poon are nothing but boxes and they break up the streetwall.

[NYguy]

^^^ I think all the excess images of non-related buildings clutter the thread.

I understand the discussion people are trying to have, but its a general one (which can apply to a lot of proposals here) and not really related to the tower at hand. Let's keep the discussion on 432 Park Ave and not on what's being built around the world.

Beyond concern of what the building will look like, there is the discussion of financing. Reportedly CIM seeks a construction loan of about $700 million. It is possible though that they could begin work without it, as we've seen (some with success, some not).

[THE BIG APPLE]

This is what this building should've been. And to think what that BOX is gonna replace.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6119/6265252892_6c9edaca07_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6042/6264724909_214644bb9a_b.jpg

[Roadcruiser1]

No. We already have a pyramid skyscraper under construction in NYC.

[STR]

The previous design, alluded to by myself and Mr. Walpole.
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6032/wtc1a018.jpg

[RobertWalpole]

Correct, as per Macklowe's model, this is what is was supposed to look like (and still may) with the drums between the cubes. I suspect that the image released in the WSJ may have been a massing model and that the drums might still be retained.

The thing that's so crazy is that if they kept the drums and turned the cubes at different angles, this building would be amazing. While the drums may be retained, the cubes won't turn, sadly.

[Dale]

Reminds me of Chicago's ill-fated 7 South Dearborn.

[Zapatan]

No. We already have a pyramid skyscraper under construction in NYC.

We do? :shrug: which one?


Not saying they SHOULD build a pyramid, I think a pyramid skyscraper would look terrible here, I would much rather have a giant box than a giant needle.. ugh

Plus pyramids get so small up top that it would really only have the impact of an 1000 or so footer

[RobertWalpole]

This one which will start soon.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/138975361/original.jpg

[marcopolo 2.0]

The previous design, alluded to by myself and Mr. Walpole.
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6032/wtc1a018.jpg

:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

[RobertWalpole]

The drums separating the cubes were the "unique element" I alluded to in the past, and they were the basis for the clue: "The Little Drummer Boy" feels Cuban.

Let's see if they're retained.

http://musicforjesus.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/little-drummer-boy1.jpg

[NYguy]

Even without the "drums", it reminds me a little of the 7 South Dearborn proposal. I think the design shown in the rendering would look better with about half the segments. If its gonna be boxy, it may as well be truly boxy.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/138975124/large.jpg

[RobertWalpole]

When I first heard a detailed description of this building months ago, I was very disappointed. However, I thought that the drums would be the saving grace and prevent it from being truly mundane. I hope that they'll be included in the final design.

[patriotizzy]

My only problem with this design is the square windows :yuck:

I think a better facade would be horizontal lines only (between floors) with the glass being curtain wall style (seamless vertical lines between panes).

I agree with the square facade. I'd like to see the vertical lines only, ala the Twin Towers. Wishful thinking though.

[NYguy]

I'm curious to find out what Donald Trump thinks of this development, he always has an opinion on these things. It's pretty much in his backyard.

The tower will shoot up here...

Mark 2400 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mss2400/3857262947/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/3857262947_a37f4279d9_b.jpg

[yankeesfan1000]

The thing that's so crazy is that if they kept the drums and turned the cubes at different angles, this building would be amazing. While the drums may be retained, the cubes won't turn, sadly.

Or even just getting rid of the drums, which I think are kind of odd, and have the whole building just twist slightly so the upper floors face Central Park. That would be amazing, even if it didn't have a crown.

[pico44]

I am not a troll. I have an opinion, how is that being a troll, excuse me? So now you will call anyone with a different opinion a troll I suppose?

The fact that I would like to see innovative architecture rather than more boxes does not make a troll.



There are many people here with differing opinions, but you are the one who is a troll.

[LeftCoaster]

It's not my favourite building and I like many of the other buildings discussed more too.

Am I a troll as well? :rolleyes:

[RobertWalpole]

21 Oct. 2011


www.curbed.com
http://ny.curbed.com/440parkuse_10_11.jpg
http://ny.curbed.com/440parkuse_10_11.jpg

[THE BIG APPLE]

I'm curious to find out what Donald Trump thinks of this development, he always has an opinion on these things. It's pretty much in his backyard.

The tower will shoot up here...

Donald Trump alway has something to say, I mean he even encouraged Travelstead enough, to not build a building accross the street from his on Fifth Ave.

[aquablue]

I have a feeling that he will be downplaying the chances of this thing getting built, then when it does, he comes out with his own taller tower down the road.

[RobertWalpole]

Trump is a putz and is irrelevant to the NY-development scene.

[aquablue]

Trump is a putz and is irrelevant to the NY-development scene.

He's hardly a putz, what are you, his rival or something?

Trump will surely be back to make his mark sooner or later. He seems to be focusing on the international projects right now, but I'm sure he'll come back to NYC and do something big before long.

[Inkoumori]

He's hardly a putz, what are you, his rival or something?

Trump will surely be back to make his mark sooner or later. He seems to be focusing on the international projects right now, but I'm sure he'll come back to NYC and do something big before long.

"The Donald" is toxic now in NYC, his influence is nil. You have to understand that developers here in this economy cherish their anonymity, and "The Donald" is still operating like it's 1988. He's a laughingstock. Nobody wants the Trump name anywhere near their building in NYC.

[Guiltyspark]

The one thing this tower has going for it is massive height. That is ruined by the square windows and the fact that the massing is broken up (whether it is by "drums" or not). I believe that the two things that could save this would be vertical glass or better yet a true spire; something like the Chrysler building. I do not understand why a developer would even consider such a bland design when things like One57 and Tower Verre are soon going to be competing for the Luxury Condo market. I was designing more unique and interesting skyscrapers in 5th grade...

[hunser]

21 Oct. 2011


www.curbed.com
http://ny.curbed.com/440parkuse_10_11.jpg
http://ny.curbed.com/440parkuse_10_11.jpg

Nice, foundation work seems to be well under way. Can't wait till it's fully u/c.

[manchester united]

Will there be 7 or 8 cube sections in this building ?

[CoolCzech]

Trump is a putz and is irrelevant to the NY-development scene.

I heard him on the radio the other day (710 AM; John Gambling's show) saying he built a golf course in Scotland and is "involved" with "people" pushing Internet gambling. So much for the vaunted "Trump Brand," one that includes taking advantage of people with gambling addiction and so-called "reality" shows. When was the last time he built anything of real import in NYC?

[Guiltyspark]

I heard him on the radio the other day (710 AM; John Gambling's show) saying he built a golf course in Scotland and is "involved" with "people" pushing Internet gambling. So much for the vaunted "Trump Brand," one that includes taking advantage of people with gambling addiction and so-called "reality" shows. When was the last time he built anything of real import in NYC?

I don't know, the golf course seems kind of cool. But lets keep this threat focused on 432 Park Avenue and not the Donald.

[NYC4Life]

Other than his last controversial tower, Trump is irrelevant to the NYC development scene. He is nowhere near his iconic status during the 80's and 90's.

[Guiltyspark]

Can someone please explain to me how this building is going to be habitable on the upper floors? It is so thin... I remember as a child reading and hearing about how a lot of thought went into the shape and structure of a lot of the tallest towers to deal with wind. Specifically that that was the reason for the 9 tower form of the Sears Tower. Now it seems like with this tower and Burj Khalifa, and others around the world that they just build as tall and skinny as they feel like. How much sway could you expect in the upper floors of this building, or on the 160th floor of Khalifa for that matter?

[scalziand]

Tuned mass dampers are useful for reducing sway in tall skinny buildings. Burj Khaliffa had provisions for one, but when it was built it was discover that the tower didn't sway enough to require one. Also, Burj Khaliffa is actually quite wide at the base.

[STR]

Can someone please explain to me how this building is going to be habitable on the upper floors? It is so thin... I remember as a child reading and hearing about how a lot of thought went into the shape and structure of a lot of the tallest towers to deal with wind. Specifically that that was the reason for the 9 tower form of the Sears Tower. Now it seems like with this tower and Burj Khalifa, and others around the world that they just build as tall and skinny as they feel like. How much sway could you expect in the upper floors of this building, or on the 160th floor of Khalifa for that matter?

Lateral wind forces are the reason for all skyscraper forms. That, in fact, is the point which separates a skyscraper from every other type of building. A building is a skyscraper the moment wind becomes a greater concern than gravity.

As for the Sears Tower, it's an office building purpose built for extra-wide mostly column free floors. The type of structure best suited for that kind of program is markedly different than a largely hotel/residential plan like Khalifa Tower or this building here. You can break up floor plans with 2-foor thick concrete sheer walls on a residential, because most homeowners don't expect to be able to knock down walls when they need more space.

[J. Will]

Manhattan is on a grid. By definition, non-box architecture damages the streetwall.

Also, Manhattan real estate development is motivated by profit, not oil-shiek pissing contests or communist party insider deals. Boxy floorplans make the most $.

So the reasons you don't see a ton of non-box floorplates in Manhattan are because it harms the urbanity and makes little financial sense.

And Park Avenue is the penultimate classic Manhattan glass box and limestone building corridor. It makes little sense to build some weird developing-world fantasy directly on Park. If you wanted something like that, Hudson Yards makes more sense.


You can have a curvy tower sit atop a boxy podium you know. There are thousands of such examples around the world. Non-box architecture need not "damage the streetwall".