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)

Onn Oct 21, 2013 1:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6309616)

This looks great! Sad we may not be getting it. But whatever design they settle on let's hope its good, if still boxy.

Perklol Oct 21, 2013 3:04 AM

Ah, so this will look very similar to 432 Park Ave?

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 21, 2013 3:34 AM

How are we on skyscraperpage calling AS+GG mediocre architects...this is obviously the developers demands for maximized usable space that makes the architects restrained into building a less than spectacular tower. the site isnt even that large lets take that into consideration...id like to see anyone complaining do any better given the task.

NYguy Oct 21, 2013 4:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6308798)
http://www.cb5.org/cb5/resolutions/o...et_application

217 West 57th Street, Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new building which would cantilever over the western portion of the Landmark site of American Fine Arts Society building at 215 West 57th Street…



...WHEREAS, Given the size of this building there was very little information provided about how this building would define itself on the skyline either through the use of materials, mechanical equipment on the roof of the building, antennae or lighting; and

WHEREAS, Given the presence of this building on the skyline and from across NYC and the region the building's treatment of the skyline is an incredibly relevant part of this discussion and should be considered more carefully and more fully as a part of this discussion by LPC and other stakeholders; and

WHEREAS, Despite requests to explain what an as-of-right building would look like absent the cantilever the applicant informed the Community Board that the information was unavailable and the Board finds it hard to believe that the applicant has not done careful massing studies of a building which would not require LPC approval


Again, this goes back to my message on presentation. Community boards are already suspicious of developers whenever the present new developments. Add to that Extell's reluctance to share any real information on the tower they are planning, and the recent crane incidents at the already rising One57 nearby, it was just a bad presentation all around.

They can build the tower without the cantilever or any type of approval. But given the fact that Extell clearly wants the cantilever, they should have been more honest, open, and upfront about what's being planned - either version. Like the community board, I find it extremely hard to believe there were no massings of any alternative available (I'm sure they have plans B, C, and D).



Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6308983)
And Smith/Gill ought to hang their heads in shame for what has amounted to be a singularly underwhelming attempt to make folks in the Big Apple stand up and take notice.

It's hard to say who's wagging who here. Extell hold's the development rights for the tower, but the site now belongs to Nordstrom, and it's their choice of architect. That they need particular floor plans for the store doesn't help. As for Extell's need to "protect" views, I really don't see how much of a difference shifting the tower 28 ft east is going to make.



Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6309206)
Gary isn't thinking about the skyline. He's concern about costs. That's probably why AS's first design was rejected.

Gary Barnett, speaking proudly of his choice with One57, said he sometimes questioned whether or not it was worth it to put up high quality architecture when he saw what other developers were putting up. (Not sure if that was a swipe at 432 Park). But again, the choice of architect was Nordstrom's. And given the firm's previous work, they had every right to expect a quality design. (As did we.)



Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6309823)
How are we on skyscraperpage calling AS+GG mediocre architects...this is obviously the developers demands for maximized usable space that makes the architects restrained into building a less than spectacular tower. the site isnt even that large lets take that into consideration...id like to see anyone complaining do any better given the task.

While I agree that the firm can do high quality architecture, I hardly give them a pass on developer mandates. Quality firms can work with what they have, that's what makes them good. SHoP architects is building a supertall skyscraper (their first really) basically in the courtyard of another building. They've somehow managed to design a skyscraper that is both fitting for New York and high quality. Looking at the Nordstom model, it clearly has setbacks. Could not then the setbacks be designed in a more typical New York fashion? Barnett always said there would be no spire or any type of height "gimmick", so forget about that. I would much rather have a box than this mix-match mess it appears to be now. It needs to be simplified.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6309616)
I spoke to a knowledgeable architect while touring ASGG's office today. He is working on the project and offered some valuable insight. The developer is pretty dead set on the cantilever, but still very interested in additional height, referencing the value of CP views.

The grey model is in two pieces, but seems to be the most detailed. You can see the cantilever, balconies throughout, a high-level setback and the open-air mechanical levels on top.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-J...549-no/13+-+11


Much appreciated. I've enlarged the model pic for closer inspection. Hopefully the cantilever plan is rejected, and we can get a less messy tower. I won't even comment on the balconies.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152984358/original.jpg

hunser Oct 21, 2013 1:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6309823)
How are we on skyscraperpage calling AS+GG mediocre architects...this is obviously the developers demands for maximized usable space that makes the architects restrained into building a less than spectacular tower. the site isnt even that large lets take that into consideration...id like to see anyone complaining do any better given the task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6309898)
While I agree that the firm can do high quality architecture, I hardly give them a pass on developer mandates. Quality firms can work with what they have, that's what makes them good. SHoP architects is building a supertall skyscraper (their first really) basically in the courtyard of another building. They've somehow managed to design a skyscraper that is both fitting for New York and high quality. Looking at the Nordstom model, it clearly has setbacks. Could not then the setbacks be designed in a more typical New York fashion? Barnett always said there would be no spire or any type of height "gimmick", so forget about that. I would much rather have a box than this mix-match mess it appears to be now. It needs to be simplified.


This. :tup:

So Portzamparc (0ne57) and SHoP (111W57th) were able to design beautiful towers in a confined space while AS+GG simply can't? Give me a break. I'm sorry, but AS+GG clearly have failed, big time. If that grey model (with the cantilever) ever sees the light of day, both Gary Barnett and the architects should be sued and forbidden to develop / design a tower ever in this city again.

antinimby Oct 21, 2013 3:20 PM

^ In a way, that kind of happened before. Remember the Ariels on upper Broadway? They were a pair of clunky looking towers that Extell threw up on opposite sides of Broadway. They were so cheap and ungainly looking that they ticked off the Upper West Side NIMBYs so much that they got the city to downzone and put in height limits for an entire stretch of the UWS along Broadway. Thanks to Extell nobody can build anything taller than 20 stories there anymore.

UTEPman Oct 21, 2013 3:35 PM

Makes you wonder why AS+GG were hired to do this tower. Seems if Extell just wanted a building that maximized space (with no regard for asthetics), they could have hired some lesser name firm for less money. Hell, I'm sure Kaufman could have designed a similar tower for half the money...:rolleyes:

Submariner Oct 21, 2013 4:21 PM

The thing is, I can't help but think that part of the appeal in these buildings to the very wealthy who are buying them are appealing exterior aesthetics. Look at One 57, 432 Park, Spruce Street, Leonard Street, 111w 57th street. All are recently constructed (or are being built) and all have unique, overt architectural styles to them. I think part of the appeal in these buildings is their exterior design.

nomad11 Oct 21, 2013 4:25 PM

I'm still trying to be optimistic about this project. Let's remember that the grey model doesn't show any indication as to what the facade of this tower will actually look like. In my opinion, a lot of "plain-shaped" buildings are enhanced by an interesting looking facade. And I also feel that maybe the open-air mechanical section at the top will be more aesthetically pleasing than what we see from this model. The beauty could be in the details...

JayPro Oct 21, 2013 4:32 PM

re Submariner's above point: The whole sticking point in the design release is IMO how to have three groups of people develop a consensus, even before official renderings are publicized, on what precisely constitutes a wealthy person's aesthetic sense relative to skyscraper design.
A cross section of people responding to this conundrum could yield some rather divergent opinions, and maybe that's what Smith/Gill and Extell especially have been struggling with here.
2¢

De Minimis NY Oct 21, 2013 9:09 PM

Maybe the fact that Barnett is dead set on a cantilever will work in the city's favor.

I'd much prefer a more interesting design with a cantilever than a bland one without. It wouldn't be an ideal result, of course, but at least it wouldn't be an eyesore that detracts from the beautiful buildings going up around it.

The landmarks committee has made it clear through their prior remarks that they want a fuller picture of what the building is going to look like before they'll approve anything. To me, that sounds like their way of saying that the only way they'll approve the cantilever is if the overall building ends up being an asthetic asset to the city.

If that's the case, Barnett is basically wasting his time by trotting out the trash we're seeing in the photos Skyguy provided (the balconies are especially unfortunate). If he's really is as dedicated to the cantilever some suggest, though, it could be possible that he'd respond to a rejection of the current proposal by trying again with a redesign of cantilevered version (hopefully something worthy of this location/height) rather than just building a taller version of what we're seeing now. I guess it'll come down to whether the economics of having relatively unobstructed views outweigh the cost savings of building an uninspiring design.

JayPro Oct 21, 2013 9:38 PM

Has anyone else here noticed the comic irony of insinuating the concepts of economic conservatism and value engineering into a discussion of the aesthetics of building tall for extremely rich people?
And the apparent inability of Barnet and Smith/Gill to show us how these two cognitively dissonant concepts could actually work well with enough forethought put into it?
But again, I suppose that's just the point...........

UTEPman Oct 21, 2013 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6310737)
Has anyone else here noticed the comic irony of insinuating the concepts of economic conservatism and value engineering into a discussion of the aesthetics of building tall for extremely rich people?
And the apparent inability of Barnet and Smith/Gill to show us how these two cognitively dissonant concepts could actually work well with enough forethought put into it?
But again, I suppose that's just the point...........

[IMG]http://troll.me/images/monocle-guy/indeed.jpg[/IMG]

NYguy Oct 22, 2013 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UTEPman (Post 6310221)
Makes you wonder why AS+GG were hired to do this tower. Seems if Extell just wanted a building that maximized space (with no regard for asthetics), they could have hired some lesser name firm for less money. Hell, I'm sure Kaufman could have designed a similar tower for half the money...:rolleyes:

Well, Nordstrom chose AS+GG. Who knows how many times the push and pull between Nordstrom and Extell caused a different plan. All I know is that the result is a mess.

Tomorrow is a big day for this tower. I wonder if anyone from the LPC will wake up tonight with a horse's head in the bed...;)


Video Link

gramsjdg Oct 22, 2013 4:12 AM

The current design looks way too much like the City of Capitals towers in Moscow... with balconies. :yuck:

NYguy Oct 22, 2013 5:29 AM

I still feel it could go either way tomorrow. I won't be ready to celebrate the removal of the cantilever until it is done. If it isn't, then we'll have to hope we can salvage something out of the design.


( October 21, 2013 )


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153005610/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153005611/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153005612/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153005613/original.jpg

hunser Oct 22, 2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSky (Post 108048580)

:haha:

NYguy Oct 22, 2013 4:03 PM

That hearing today was scheduled for 12:15. So everyone should be in place.

CCs77 Oct 22, 2013 4:43 PM

Is that hearing public? everyone can enter or just people from the LPC?

sbarn Oct 22, 2013 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCs77 (Post 6311647)
Is that hearing public? everyone can enter or just people from the LPC?

The hearing should be public.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11 AM.

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