SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

JayPro Sep 8, 2014 4:38 PM

Apparently, our friends on SSC have within the past several minutes received word of these renders. FWIW, one of them continues adamantly that this isn't the final design, citing the lack of official comment from Barnett/Extell.
The original blueprints mentioned more or less show the tower in the form we see now. But seeing all this detail added to a form that hasn't changed since said blueprints were first made public leads me to think that this is as close to final as we're gonna get barring official word.
Same form + more detail = "continuing flux"?
Meh.........
FWIW (Both images courtesy of www.yimbynews.com):

Today:
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...et-profile.jpg

July:
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...m-Tower-31.jpg


Also from NYYIMBY, however:

Today:
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...reet-South.jpg

Again...from July (NB rather substantial differences in placement and spire orientation...[EDIT: See below.]):
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...-Skyline-1.jpg

And yes...I realize that the image directly above was meant to showcase the future 57th supertalls and environs...But there's no excuse for using a CGI with so many glaring inaccuracies and omissions.

gramsjdg Sep 8, 2014 9:06 PM

So originally, according to the current proposed design, the roof was a 1428 ft and the parapet at 1479 ft.

Recently, the updated DOB filings (?) stated 1490 ft for the roof. Would it be correct to assume then that the roof has been increased in height by 62 ft?

And if the parapet section is the same general size, then are we talking a parapet height of ~1550 ft or is the language inexact and the parapet is 1490 ft?

If the filing states 1490 ft to roof, does that or does that not include the parapet?:???:

NYguy Sep 9, 2014 4:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6721289)
Apparently, our friends on SSC have within the past several minutes received word of these renders. FWIW, one of them continues adamantly that this isn't the final design, citing the lack of official comment from Barnett/Extell.

Of course, they never stated the renderings to be official. The drawings are based on what information they have.

CCs77 Sep 10, 2014 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx (Post 6721288)
As much as I like YIMBY, what they've done here is really a disservice to the architects. Basically they took detailed plans that had to be filed with the city and used them to construct a model of the building - then rendered it themselves. There is a level of detail and nuance that the architecture team would have included in their own renderings that is not included here - and that may be quite different when we actually see the official views.

I have a feeling both Adrian Smith and Gary Barnett are fuming at this release of images without their approval.

Well, they've never intended to make a very accurate depiction of the final product, they know that, we know that. They simply used the information they had and made those renderings to show, more or less, how it could be. Obviously, the final product could be be different, with added detail and could even still change a bit.

I don't think there is not much of disservice to the architects, they are finishing their design, and when it is ready and the developers think it is time to unveil it officially, they will do it, including all the details and aspects of the designs they want to show.

Also I don't think neither the architects nor the developers are that pissed off either. A few months ago, Yimby published some rendering of a big development proposed for Jersey City, taken from the architect's page itself. Just a few days later, the architect took the renderings of his own site and demanded Yimby to do the same. I guess that if they were angry about the releasing of those renderings, they would did the same, but they didn't.

JayPro Sep 10, 2014 8:33 PM

See, here's why where we're at in this whole process pisses me off no end now.


My issue is not with NYYIMBY, who has claimed to handle their end of this mess with the sort of professional integrity intrinsically demanded of them by the very jobs they have.
See...Theres a gigunda, halfway-filled crater in the ground; and even now neither Barnett nor S/G have put out renderings ex cathedra with imprimatur of what's going to rise there. I thought that was supposed to happen by now.

It seems to me that official design or not---yea, constantly re-tweaked potential final product or not---NYYIMBY seems to be doing the work that the other entities aforementioned are ostensibly to be held responsible and accountable for. Now this can either bespeak their sense of responsible journalism taken to admirable (if not odd) extremes, or even something less kosher, as could also be implied or outright insinuated.

All that said though...........

To Whomever this Plea Might Concern: Please Please Please stop the god-blasted teases and tell us once once and for all where we are at this stage of the game!
It was IMHO a miracle that the whole 432 Park drama that wended its way through cyberspace without the potential harm to reputations that could have been done. The controversy here seems prepared to give it the proverbial run for the money, with frighteningly similar parallels in the main points of issue for both. Indeed, it may not be to long before there get to be enough frayed nerves to make this discussion just as tempestuous.
Speaking on behalf of myself as a member of this fine message board, I cannot bear to see the status quo wreak further havoc, causing one source after another--regardless of what they say--lead us with carrots on fish-hooks in a dozen different directions, with...alas...maybe a scant few of us still prepared to rise to the bait.
I have officially lost my patience with the stonewalling, temporization, tergiversation and prevarication.
Truth...now. What we see as of this very day better be at least 95.5% true to what we're gonna get.
Or at least let's see a certified render at the site by the end of the fecking month.

Hudson11 Sep 10, 2014 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro
See, here's why where we're at in this whole process pisses me off no end now.

Theres a gigunda halfway-filled crater in the ground; and even now neither Barnett nor S/G have put out renderings ex cathedra with imprimatur of what's going to rise there. I thought that was supposed to happen by now.

It seems to me that official design or not---yea, constantly re-tweaked potential final product or not---NYYIMBY seems to be doing the work that the other entities aforementioned were responsible and accountable for.

Memo to all parties involved: Please Please Please stop the god-blasted teases and tell us once once and for all where we are at this stage of the game!
It was bad enough IMHO that the whole 432 Park drama that wended its way through cyberspace. This controversy seems prepared to give it the proverbial run for the money, with frighteningly similar parallels in the main points of issue for both. Indeed, it may not be to long before there get to be enough frayed nerves to make this discussion just as tempestuous.
Speaking on behalf of myself as a member of this fine message board, I cannot bear to see the status quo wreak further havoc, causing one source after another--regardless of what they say--lead us with carrots on fish-hooks in a dozen different directions, with...alas...maybe a scant few of us still prepared to rise to the bait.
I have officially lost my patience with the stonewalling, temporization, tergiversation and prevarication.
Truth...now. What we see as of this very day better be at least 95.5% true to what we're gonna get.
Or at least let's see a certified render at the site by the end of the fecking month.

I don't see what has you so upset... we know the general massing of the tower, we know its height, we know its under-construction (SSP rules notwithstanding) an official rendering is more of an icing on the cake than anything at this point. Others may say that the design is still being tweaked, and they're probably correct, but there won't be any major changes from what has been leaked out.

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...3D%20Views.jpg

ILNY Sep 10, 2014 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 6724627)
I don't see what has you so upset... we know the general massing of the tower...

General massing is not the same as official render and we do not know official cladding either. It most likely look different what NY Yimby released.... or someone is getting fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6724536)
See...Theres a gigunda, halfway-filled crater in the ground; and even now neither Barnett nor S/G have put out renderings ex cathedra with imprimatur of what's going to rise there. I thought that was supposed to happen by now.

If Barnett has not released official renders by now, he will most likely follow the same pattern as with One 57. Design will be given to New York Times when the tower foundation is all concrete and ready to rise and NYguy will get a morning copy of NYT, scan the picture and post it here, just like he did with One57 :)

Hudson11 Sep 10, 2014 11:19 PM

YIMBY received the details and drawings from a tipster/insider. So yeah if someone is found out they'll likely be punished. These are official, or were official.
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...-Elevation.jpg

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...-Elevation.jpg


and we already know some details about the cladding.
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/09/new...th-street.html

Quote:

While 220 Central Park South will borrow from architect Robert A. M. Stern’s limestone touch, its taller companion will be an exercise in glass and metal, designed by architects Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill. Glass will dominate the facade, and “fins” will be clad in stainless steel, which will be the dominant metal. The building also includes painted aluminum louvers.
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/07/nor...-building.html
Quote:

Structural drawings indicate the curtain wall will be accompanied by steel fins and aluminum louvers, and the result should become a contemporary icon on the Manhattan skyline.

JayPro Sep 10, 2014 11:51 PM

So then is it possible that YIMBY too is subject to penalty for receiving the tipster's info in the first place? Or even employing him as a source?
Because right now, based on the details involved therein, IMO way too detailed for even the casual reader to consider this tower's design nowhere near finalized despite claims otherwise, I'm getting a really strong premonition that more than one person in both Barnett's and Smith/Gill's offices is hella miffed.
If at any point it is revealed that a breach of confidentiality at some point in the loop has been committed, woe is the one who committed it.

JayPro Sep 11, 2014 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6724677)



If Barnett has not released official renders by now, he will most likely follow the same pattern as with One 57. Design will be given to New York Times when the tower foundation is all concrete and ready to rise and NYguy will get a morning copy of NYT, scan the picture and post it here, just like he did with One57 :)

Based on my previous post, I wonder if indeed we're so close to a finished presentation that the plan he followed for One57 as you mentioned above might've been sabotaged....For all intents and purposes he might as well own up now.

Crawford Sep 11, 2014 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6724536)
See, here's why where we're at in this whole process pisses me off no end now.

My issue is not with NYYIMBY, who has claimed to handle their end of this mess with the sort of professional integrity intrinsically demanded of them by the very jobs they have.

I don't know what your issue is with Extell, or NY Yimby, or the process in general. Developers are under no obligation to release anything regarding design. We already know the height, floorplans, and official filings.

That said, it's quite obvious that NY Yimby has the inside scoop on the building, and there's no reason to think that the released designs aren't accurate. There's also no reason to think that Extell doesn't 100% support the released designs.

And if they are slightly off in terms of final design, we'll know soon enough, so no point in really speculating.

ILNY Sep 11, 2014 1:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6724771)
There's also no reason to think that Extell doesn't 100% support the released designs.

I was thinking about it, but it just does not make sense why he would "leaked" the design through the back door and would not take full credit for it.

wilfredo267 Sep 11, 2014 6:54 AM

This was posted at SSP by Londoniumlex. Nordstrom project is mentioned in page 17

http://www.surfacedg.com/files/ajlp_...es_offered.pdf

gramsjdg Sep 11, 2014 3:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilfredo267 (Post 6725130)
This was posted at SSP by Londoniumlex. Nordstrom project is mentioned in page 17

http://www.surfacedg.com/files/ajlp_...es_offered.pdf

Well, that description of the curtain wall design is certainly in line with NIMBY's latest renders...

JayPro Sep 11, 2014 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6724771)
I don't know what your issue is with Extell, or NY Yimby, or the process in general...

It's just this waiting game...or maybe that no one wants to have the pressure put on them to run with the ball...as if whoever drops it the most wins.

But what do they (or would they) win? Perhaps my contempt for not handling this thing the way it should've been, case and point during the CB5 meeting?

And PS: having seen the item spoken of posted on SSC, I'd like to know why it was posted??? Is this another attempt at bringing yet another party involved into this PR train-wreck???

Crawford Sep 11, 2014 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6725595)
I Is this another attempt at bringing yet another party involved into this PR train-wreck???

What "PR train wreck"? This is what I don't get.

This tower isn't being built to satisfy skyscraper geeks. There's no obligation to release anything, though the public filings tell us most of what we already know. And the NY YIMBY scoops have been enormously helpful in filling out the missing pieces.

wilfredo267 Sep 11, 2014 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6725523)
Well, that description of the curtain wall design is certainly in line with NIMBY's latest renders...

Even though l love what we've seen so far the 1,550ft quote intrigues me.:)

JayPro Sep 11, 2014 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6725651)
What "PR train wreck"? This is what I don't get...

Okay; maybe I should've limited that description to the CB5 meeting; but I'll stick by my description of what it exactly was, given that:
A. Plenty of others here posted time and time again chiding Extell's presentation, calling it more or less the same thing as cold be deduced from my wording.
B. As bad a taste in my mouth as this kerfuffle left, I had IMHO every right to suspect that their handling of this whole thing going forward was susceptible to further missteps, one of them being IMO allowing a third party to insinuate itself into the matter, perhaps perhaps perhaps (my emphasis) as a means of repenting for what might've been considered by some as, indeed, a PR misstep.
That's how my calling this process a PR trainwreck came to be.

Quote:

This tower isn't being built to satisfy skyscraper geeks. There's no obligation to release anything, though the public filings tell us most of what we already know. And the NY YIMBY scoops have been enormously helpful in filling out the missing pieces.
My respectful rebuttal by sentence:

1. I certainly trust that this isn't suggesting that skyscraper "geeks"---as I suppose in whose number and company I seem to find myself---can't have have critical input into this subject. We're living in privileged times when the current building phase allows for something of this magnificent scope to rise skywards...many times over, as we're seeing in other projects too. The nerd and the realist should dance for joy with one another.

2. My usage of the phrase "for all intents and purposes" in the post that I think you might be referring to---i.e. when I suggested, "Why doesn't Barnett/SG just release the finished product now if we're in fact this close to a final product?"---was quite deliberate. I never anywhere else in this thread made outright demand for official drawings. Perhaps the tone and tenor of my recent posts might have lead to some kind of inference along these lines gaining traction; I don't know.

3. Now here's where I start to lose sight of things. This almighty tipster that NYYIMBY's using is either someone from Barnett and/or SG in a trust-based professional relationship with said e-pub ...or a freelancer with dubious credentials and affiliations whose working with YIMBY--and possible leakage of confidential/classified material from either Extell or SG--could have serious repercussions.
I don't know...Maybe the fact that neither of the aforementioned have said "Boo"---on anything, let alone this question---is the answer I'll have to learn to be satisfied with.

sbarn Sep 11, 2014 9:44 PM

Omg. This thread has taken a turn for the weird.

This probably isn't the FINAL design. It will probably look something like it though... there's no harm in these renderings. Extell has no obligation to release anything since this tower is "as of right".

JayPro Sep 11, 2014 10:28 PM

The fault is mine for the strange nature this thread has taken.

Maybe in my own parallel universe, building design and approval processes usually don't take thrice as long as those entailing the time from groundbreaking and excavation to actual construction above grade.

Or maybe I haven't actually looked into just saying a smaller piece on things, not beating a dead horse till I feel a need for everyone here to catch the smallest quark of my gist, and slowly backing away.

In either case, I think we all can agree that what we see right now is close enough to what we're gonna get that none of us will be too surprised......:notacrook:


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.