|
Quote:
If the Tower Verre had to lose 200 ft because it was deemed unworthy of being in the ESB airspace, imagine if Amanda Burden had to approve this one. Great design can't be mandated, because it's subjective. But this, at this height, in this city, should have been better. |
The original, tapered design was certainly much better (the one Barnett was holding in the PBS documentary a couple years back). Was a reason ever given as to why that one couldn't be built? Integrating the base perhaps or maybe not enough square footage? :shrug:
|
Quote:
|
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I actually like this design, simple and elegant, nice lines that accentuate the verticality of it, and the cantilever adds a nice flair when viewed from the base. It's not as great as the other supertalls but still nice IMO. And I like it wayyyy more than 432 Park (the current tallest by roof height).
|
I would love to see a rendering of AS+GG's original design. They clearly won the right to design with that other model, but were limited to the boxy version we have now.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
was there ever a time early on when nordstrom was not being considered for this tower? because even if it could have worked out for site, the original design does not seem to account for a large dept store at the base.
|
Quote:
Hmmmm... the massing for the top section (longer) looks pretty current. Maybe we'll get the spire after all? |
The spire would make some amends for the top.
Quote:
http://m4.i.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1...Lq9Qf2f.v1.jpg Look again at the base. The Nordstrom floorplates aren't huge, even in the current tower. But you can read more about that on the previous page. Barnett actually sold this site to Nordstrom, retaining the rights for the tower. But before Nordstrom, there were other plans, including designs by Foster, and this one from SHoP. Didn't care for it either. http://m9.i.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1...BLH9T8.s6b.JPG http://m9.i.pbase.com/o2/06/102706/1...DJaipa5.m4.jpg |
Quote:
|
hmm, ok i guess nordstrom could fit at the base of the original design. that odd slanting window though. maybe it would have been a bit smaller? hard to say.
but whoa with that early foster design. nice find. we dodged a bullet there. |
I really hope we get the spire, it makes such a difference.
I also completely agree with NYGuy's sentiment above. The design isn't terrible for something shorter, but at this height we really need to be getting more. The truth is that there are costs to adding new supertalls: By surpassing old classics we obscured them, both in terms of actually blocking them and in terms of reducing their prominence relative to the forest around them (e.g., Chrysler). Just look at old photos of the financial district from back when 70 Pine and Woolworth dictated the shape of the skyline… Overall I’m happy for what we’ve gained, but I’m still cognizant of what was lost. It’s the trade-off we live with--we need to accept the relative loss of old classics in order to gain future classics like 53W53rd or 111 57th. That said, the core principal behind this trade-off is the hope that the new towers will add a character of their own that is of equal or greater value than what we lose. With respect to the recent wave of supertalls, I believe that this has generally held true. Sadly, though, this design is an exception. By being the tallest building in Midtown it does an outsized amount of damage to the old skyline we love, and therefore needs to supplant that with an outsized quality of design. Measured by that standard, it just falls well short. |
Again, while I'm not in love with the design I'm not as down on this tower as others are... if it was by itself the standard of the skyline, sure it would be disappointing but it's by no means terrible and with others around like Steinway and 220 Central Park South and 53 W 53rd it will still be a positive overall in the skyline and I think we'll get used to it and find some thing worth appreciating in it.. especially should it regain the spire. Will it ever wow anyone simply by design? No, not likely. But I'm not going to let my expectations get so lowered that I don't look forward when it does become a fixture in the skyline that just can't be ignored.
|
^ Exactly. It cannot be ignored visually on the skyline. Exactly the reason it needed to be more.
Quote:
|
^^^^
That title might go to Vanderbilt as the skyline defining tower IMO. While CPT does have a little height on it, in terms of a tower reflecting the rich skyline history and impact that it has, Vanderbilt might be it. It's in a prime location, and its aesthetics resemble the ESB in a way (which arguably is the skyscraper that stands time and time again as the colloquial symbol of the city). https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...1-1024x576.jpg Credit: 6sqft It just feels like Gotham, something CPT can't quite convey. |
^ +1 :tup:
|
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev