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 Oct 29, 2013 1:43 AM

Well-played, sir. :)

hunser Oct 29, 2013 3:10 PM

New rendering!!!

http://www.citylandnyc.org/wp-conten...215-W-57st.jpg

http://www.citylandnyc.org/approved-...udents-league/

Quote:

Skyscraper to be built as-of-right, but requires Landmarks to review and approve its impact on adjacent individual landmark. On October 22, 2013, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to Extell Development, despite one dissenting vote, to allow a portion of a new planned tower to cantilever over the individually landmarked American Fine Arts Society building, located at 215 West 57th Street in Midtown Manhattan. The tower, which is intended to rise to over 1,400 feet, will house a Nordstrom department store at its base, and residences and a hotel above the store. The French Renaissance-style landmark building has been continuously occupied by the Art Students League of New York since its construction in 1892.

The cantilevered portion of the building would be visible from multiple street vantages. The cantilever would extend 28 feet into the landmark lot, approximately one-third of the lot. The section intruding into the air above the Art Students League would start at 290 feet above the street and 195 feet above the roof of the art school, which is equivalent to “20 stories of air.” The cantilever would be set back 80 feet from the street wall.

At the public hearing, Gary Barnett of Extell stated that the project, which would constitute “a significant addition to the New York City skyline,” would create over 1,300 jobs and generate over $1 billion in tax revenue for the City over 20 years. Barnett said the proposal would in no way detract from the landmark. Preservation Consultant Bill Higgins argued that the cantilever and the landmark would “exist in different planes of urban experience.”

Architect Gordon Gill, of Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture, said the glass-faced building would be composed of cantilevers, including a “sky lobby” 139 feet above the street. He said the cantilever over the landmark would give the building “a sense of scale” and a “modulation of the texture” of the otherwise sheer side façade. Gill said the transparent façade of the new building would provide “a contrast” to the stone-clad landmark, and “add texture and animation to the street.”

A representative of Manhattan Community Board 5 recommended a denial of the certificate, stating that the tower would be the second-tallest building in Manhattan and the cantilever would set a poor precedent. Ronda Wist of the Municipal Art Society argued that Landmarks should withhold approval until Extell instituted a protection plan for the Art Students League. She also testified that the new building’s all-glass façade would not relate well to the masonry landmark, and that a study of the project’s impact on the already congested neighborhood is required. The New York Landmarks Conservancy’s Alex Herrera also spoke in opposition, calling the cantilevered section a “huge mass hovering over the Art Students League.” One member of the League testified that the project would block natural light from entering the building through its rooftop skylights. Some area residents expressed concerns about safety, noting that a crane collapse had previously occurred at an Extell construction site, with one comparing the construction of the cantilever to a “sword of Damocles.”

Executive Director of the Art Students League Ira Goldberg said the funds from the League’s sale of its air rights to Extell would ensure the school’s longevity and allow it to make improvements. Goldberg attested that the project’s impact on the building would be minimal. Rick Bell, Executive Director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, praised the design of the planned tower, and said it would not negatively affect the landmark, and that the unique characteristics of the site and the project would prevent it from setting a precedent. A representative of the Hotel Trades Council spoke in favor, saying the project would create “quality middle-class jobs.”

Landmarks Counsel Mark Silberman advised the Commissioners that Landmarks’ purview was limited to the project’s impact on the landmarked site, particularly the appropriateness of the cantilever. Silberman also advised that the Commission was not reviewing the design and scale of the planned tower.

Chair Robert B. Tierney recommended approval of the application, finding that it would have “negligible impact to the landmark site,” and noting that the project would be a benefit to the City and the art school. Concurring, Commissioner Libby Ryan concurred said the project would disrupt the complete perception of the landmark. Commissioner Diana Chapin found the cantilever to be an integral component of the proposed new structure, which would read as “part of the larger urban skyscape” that it did not impinge on the landmark. Commissioner Roberta Washington suggested that the cantilever be reduced so that it projects less into the landmarked site.

Commissioner Michael Goldblum did not find the proposal appropriate, determining that it did not reach the standard for architecture on an individually designated site. He said the impact of the project on the landmark was mitigated by the height of the cantilever, but the landmarked building would still be negatively affected. He also noted that the cantilever was not necessary for the development of the neighboring parcel.

The Commission voted to award the plan a certificate of appropriateness, with Commissioner Goldblum dissenting.

LPC: The American Fine Arts Society, 215 West 57th Street, Manhattan (14-9057) (Oct. 22, 2013) (Architect: Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture).

hunser Oct 29, 2013 3:14 PM

Truly an uninspired design. Extell and Co. had the chance of building something really great and bold here and they blew it. Going the safe way just doesn't cut it. For now, all this tower has is height. But taller towers are already on the horizon and when they begin to rise, 217W57th will be quickly forgotten due to its mediocore design.

Bravo Gary! Bravo Nordstrom! Bravo AS&GG! Bravo LPC! You did an outstanding job of creating the most boring 400m+ supertall in this city.

antinimby Oct 29, 2013 3:25 PM

That is not an exciting design.

They all (Extell, Nordstrom, Landmarks, etc.) deserve a big F for a truly missed opportunity.

Thymant Oct 29, 2013 3:56 PM

I really think everyone is being extremely hard on this building's design and I think I know why. When to renderings for 432 park ave came out there were no other buildings in the area in that same height category that had rendering that were out and most people thought it looked okay even though it was a more basic and boring design than this one. However once the renderings for 111 w 57th st came out, most people loved the design and set high standards for the design of this one and when the first glimpses of this one came out many people were unimpressed. However this building does have a decent design a based upon the materials used for the final product it has potential to be a very nice building. No its not on the same level as 111 w 57th (from what we see from renderings) but it is a decent building and most people who are viewing it will not see the base or the cantilever.

King DenCity Oct 29, 2013 4:46 PM

Diagram Now? (I still feel let down by the design... and the height)

mistermetAJ Oct 29, 2013 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6319398)
That is not an exciting design.

They all (Extell, Nordstrom, Landmarks, etc.) deserve a big F for a truly missed opportunity.

I am truly sick to my stomach seeing this design. AS+GG, Nordstrom, Landmark, Extell, and the rest are truly awful.

For those of us who won't live in the tower or shop at Nordstrom's and garner only enjoyment from seeing these buildings and how they work with and enhance the skyline, this is a huge disappointment.

Other than height, there is nothing interesting or really redeeming about this building.

nomad11 Oct 29, 2013 5:08 PM

I suspect this new rendering represents the same "massing model" which was shown at the original meeting discussing the cantilever. Since some sources at SSC have said that is not the final design, then I have to think that this is not the official render.....fingers crossed

Onn Oct 29, 2013 5:08 PM

What in the heck is that!?! :yuck:

mistermetAJ Oct 29, 2013 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6319535)
What in the heck is that!?! :yuck:

The cantilever has a cantilever on top as well. Wow I hate this building.

NYguy Oct 29, 2013 5:39 PM


Didn't think it possible, but that's even worse than initially perceived.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153137148/original.jpg


Hopefully, in his quest to add a little more height, Barnett decides that this design just isn't going to cut it. I don't see this as being catchy enough to the high end millionaires and billionaires that he needs to attract to the building.

JayPro Oct 29, 2013 5:57 PM

Robert Walpole once again has suggested through a contact of his that this is not the final design
(Remember the fight we had with him over 423P? Turned out that what he suggested there was just about right...).

This is just a highly cleaned up version of what was seen at the CB5 meeting.

Besides, what are we to make of those physical models we've been seeing? Especially the one pointed to as the model of record?

supertallchaser Oct 29, 2013 6:46 PM

i think its better than the initial rendering

NYguy Oct 29, 2013 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6319580)
Robert Walpole once again has suggested through a contact of his that this is not the final design

I'm sure its not "final" as Barnett is tinkering with the height. The models didn't show any cladding, but are consistent with the shape and the setbacks. No finer details of that are going to impress me with this tower. It will be massed as shown, unless Barnett moves in a totally different direction.

JayPro Oct 29, 2013 7:29 PM

But the physical model that was touted as official also showed some balconization(?) going on. Maybe this is on the sides(s) of the tower we're not seeing?

(Caveat: the following is contingent on the proposition that this is indeed the first official render) IMO the cantilevering on top is a bold step. The bands of the facade seems to have some kind of brickface staggering happening, as well as at the upper levels. Also, IIRC, there was talk of some kind of angularizatiom a la 4WTC too. Is this also on the opposite side of the render with the alleged balconies? Too soon to tell obviously.

EDIT: Another barely detectable aspect just caught my eye. There seems to be somewhat of an *extremely* slight left-ward curve both at the first setback and the facade band below it.

Both heightwise and in terms of rather unardorned form, this and 432P will make some rather impressive bookends looking N/S with the Three Sisters (One57, TV, 111) in between. Near-symmetry on a grand scale if you ask me.

Perklol Oct 29, 2013 8:05 PM

It looks like any other office building at Hudson Yards.

JTPWNSU Oct 29, 2013 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thymant (Post 6319436)
I really think everyone is being extremely hard on this building's design and I think I know why. When to renderings for 432 park ave came out there were no other buildings in the area in that same height category that had rendering that were out and most people thought it looked okay even though it was a more basic and boring design than this one. However once the renderings for 111 w 57th st came out, most people loved the design and set high standards for the design of this one and when the first glimpses of this one came out many people were unimpressed. However this building does have a decent design a based upon the materials used for the final product it has potential to be a very nice building. No its not on the same level as 111 w 57th (from what we see from renderings) but it is a decent building and most people who are viewing it will not see the base or the cantilever.

Agreed. This building isn't spectacular, but I don't see what is so "terrible" about it.

Tectonic Oct 29, 2013 8:41 PM

Some curves could save this. The glass could make or break it.

NYguy Oct 29, 2013 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6319770)
It looks like any other office building at Hudson Yards.

I don't see a resemblance to anything else in the city actually. Not even 432 Park. You could say the form at the top is similar to 3 Hudson Blvd - a bulky, boxy office building, but very little of the tower is.

If it's going to be a box, they should clearly make it a box, and leave it at that. The various setbacks and cantilevers only creat a visual, cluttering mess. No amount of pretty glass is going to fix that.

NYC GUY Oct 29, 2013 8:55 PM

It doesn't look that bad to be honest with some fine cladding it could be good.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:23 PM.

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