SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6288322)
We need to stop bashing the architects and attack the developers and tenants... They give the architects demands they must work with. If it was up the Adrian and Gordon I'm sure a tower like trump tower or the Greenland center would have gone up here.

Every architect works within confines mandated by the developer. The great architects figure it out and make masterpieces. Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill made a 1453 ft eye soar permanently disgracing the skyline. They put their names and brands on the line with the design, so they should be held accountable with our criticism.

Blaze23 Oct 3, 2013 4:37 AM

Totally agree. Most architects in the city have to deal with certain requirements and in some cases oddly shaped lots that can be quite challenging. But great architects figure out a way around it and even turn it into something unique, case in point Tower Verre, One57, the Steinway tower, 432 Park; how those architects came out with those beauties in such restrictive lots along with demands from developers have to appreciated. This is just bad and lazy architecture, period! I am still scratching my head how Burnett would go along with such a design, this would be ok for an office tower in the middle of midtown, but as a trophy luxury condo tower in such a prime location and considering how stunning the competition is(including Extell's own One57), I'm really left scratching my head.

NYguy Oct 3, 2013 4:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6288345)
You can blame CB5's landmark committee; in fact, a member of the Arts Student League asked if they were available for viewing (the plans), and the chair said it was irrelevant to the conversation. Keep in mind the ASL's owners/whathaveyou accepted & endorsed the plan while its members are apparently totally unaware of what the development even entails, because even they do not have access to the plans


What a jerk. Why have the renderings there at all if it's all irrelevant. This guy clearly should have been home in bed.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 3, 2013 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6288430)
Every architect works within confines mandated by the developer. The great architects figure it out and make masterpieces. Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill made a 1453 ft eye soar permanently disgracing the skyline. They put their names and brands on the line with the design, so they should be held accountable with our criticism.

Ok if you were told that you had a set budget that was not to be passed...certain zoning regulations to follow and a small core shaft that cannot be put in the middle of the site itself do to tenant demand would you be able to design a building on par with shanghai tower or the dancing towers or even burj khalifa? What shapes do we have left besides boxes that would be profitable and cost effective? Id love to see great towers with amazing feats of engineering and style being built here like those in Asia but this is NYC a city of ambition with set rules,budgets and practicality. Grander structures would be nice but in reality We need no statements to make like developing cities do its not 1930 and our city knows that.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 3, 2013 4:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6288446)
Totally agree. Most architects in the city have to deal with certain requirements and in some cases oddly shaped lots that can be quite challenging. But great architects figure out a way around it and even turn it into something unique, case in point Tower Verre, One57, the Steinway tower, 432 Park; how those architects came out with those beauties in such restrictive lots along with demands from developers have to appreciated. This is just bad and lazy architecture, period! I am still scratching my head how Burnett would go along with such a design, this would be ok for an office tower in the middle of midtown, but as a trophy luxury condo tower in such a prime location and considering how stunning the competition is(including Extell's own One57), I'm really left scratching my head.

The goal is to build space to put on the market, iconic structures are great but the do have price tags and not everyone is willing to pay those kinds of cost when their job is not to make pretty things to look at but rather to build comprehensive, effective and enjoyable spaces to live and work in. The exterior of a building is just that its exterior.


Websters Dictionary defines a build as the following. Build.ing :a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)


It says nothing about the exterior, yes i think that developers should make a conscious effort to make great structures that compliment the streetscape and skyline though ultimately its unnecessary so long as the dwelling is functional. A building is just that...a building a nothing more we just hope that they can look dynamic. Extell, Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill did their jobs they have created a practical and functional dwelling. And as for the continued bashing of AS+GG we all know their great architects who do not deserve ridicule considering the myriad of different factors involved in this project.

Blaze23 Oct 3, 2013 5:29 AM

For one don't I think AS&GH are great architects! But to each it's own, I'm not gonna debate architectural tastes. Now if every developer and architects' unique goal is to create "functional dwellings" with total disregard to the exterior, I think us skyscraper and architecture enthusiasts might need to get ourselves another hobby. What a world that would be without the Chrysler or the ESB! Nobody is denying the challenges some of them face but considering the city, the location and the amount supposedly to be spent on this building (around 1 billion if I'm correct) this is a flat out dud!

NYguy Oct 3, 2013 12:56 PM

You know, if not for that animation they produced, I would say this was a generic mockup of what could be built. But that video is very specific on details.



http://pix11.com/2013/10/02/sorry-wt...#axzz2gbrRWq6e

Sorry WTC! New skyscraper to be the tallest building in NYC

by Kaity Tong
Oct 2, 2013


Quote:

And here’s another piece of bad news for the Empire State Building. It’s already been topped by the World Trade Center, now another building is in the works that will be even taller.

A new apartment building going up on West 57th that when finished will be tallest in NYC — taller than the World Trade Center if you don’t count the Freedom Tower’s 400-foot spire.

This building will also house the first Nordstrom’s in Manhattan.

.....The announcement of the building has already created lots of chatter on social media with comments ranging from “That’s so ugly,” to “It’s the crown jewel of the vertical march toward the sky.”

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 2:21 PM

They fucked it up. They used the model for 111.
And did she say 215????????

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 2:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6288634)
You know, if not for that animation they produced, I would say this was a generic mockup of what could be built. But that video is very specific on details.



http://pix11.com/2013/10/02/sorry-wt...#axzz2gbrRWq6e

Sorry WTC! New skyscraper to be the tallest building in NYC

by Kaity Tong
Oct 2, 2013

Well if the video is accurate, it gives hope that the building is more than just a giant slab, and has some sort of crown on top.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6288693)
They fucked it up. They used the model for 111.
And did she say 215????????

Look at the part of the video that compares all the buildings. You can see that 225 W 57th actually has some details on the tower portion (if it was the correct rendering).

NYguy Oct 3, 2013 2:47 PM

^ They used the wrong building.


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5285/5...d8d1a357_z.jpg
Anomalous_A

babybackribs2314 Oct 3, 2013 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6288713)
Well if the video is accurate, it gives hope that the building is more than just a giant slab, and has some sort of crown on top.





Look at the part of the video that compares all the buildings. You can see that 225 W 57th actually has some details on the tower portion (if it was the correct rendering).

LOL, that's a news channel? They showed an image of Central Park Place, an already-built building. Stupid. Their site is totally saturated with ads, too :yuck:

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6288728)
^ They used the wrong building.

Answer to my question already posted above. Thanks NYguy.



Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6288728)

Well that's extremely disappointing. I was borderline excited for a second...:doh:

NYguy Oct 3, 2013 2:56 PM

^ LOL, for that piece of garbage?


Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6288730)
LOL, that's a news channel?

Channel 11 news is among the worst. They do seem excited for the Nordstrom, but couldn't be bothered to get the location correct for the story.

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6288449)
Ok if you were told that you had a set budget that was not to be passed...certain zoning regulations to follow and a small core shaft that cannot be put in the middle of the site itself do to tenant demand would you be able to design a building on par with shanghai tower or the dancing towers or even burj khalifa? What shapes do we have left besides boxes that would be profitable and cost effective? Id love to see great towers with amazing feats of engineering and style being built here like those in Asia but this is NYC a city of ambition with set rules,budgets and practicality. Grander structures would be nice but in reality We need no statements to make like developing cities do its not 1930 and our city knows that.

That is just a cop-out statement to rationalize a horrible piece of architecture. No city needs a grand building, but great buildings can inspire and add to the cityscape. I can't say AS+GG have done anything like that with this building.

You can rationalize away the reasons for their bad architecture like you've done above, but the fact is, it's still bad architecture.

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6288744)
^ LOL, for that piece of garbage?




Channel 11 news is among the worst. They do seem excited for the Nordstrom, but couldn't be bothered to get the location correct for the story.

The fact I was excited for that shows just how awful I think the actual design really is.:yuck:

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 3, 2013 4:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6288763)
That is just a cop-out statement to rationalize a horrible piece of architecture. No city needs a grand building, but great buildings can inspire and add to the cityscape. I can't say AS+GG have done anything like that with this building.

You can rationalize away the reasons for their bad architecture like you've done above, but the fact is, it's still bad architecture.

Look im not happy with the design either but all im trying to point out is that its not a developers job to build great buildings its his job to build spaces that will generate revenue and reputable architects should not be held accountable when developers screw up.

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 5:08 PM

But we haven't *seen* anything yet officially.
I honestly do not understand his hangup going around with how apparently awful this tower is. Babyback's video, poor by his own admission, is all I've had to go by. And AFAIC, it tells me nothing of how great or shitty the overall design is.
It just bugs me that too many folks here formulate opinions by extrapolation. A whopperjawed base does (read: should) not make or break the rest of the tower.
In fact, I find the cantilevering rather bold and imposing.

Besides, for how many years were folks shitting all over the architecture of the original Twins: i.e., boring, monolithic, domineering, soulless, what have you. Then suddenly from 9-11 to this very day they're lionized as iconic and everlasting symbols of what this city is all about.

Sometimes I can literally hear the cognitive dissonance emanating from this forum.

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6288980)
But we haven't *seen* anything yet officially.
I honestly do not understand his hangup going around with how apparently awful this tower is. Babyback's video, poor by his own admission, is all I've had to go by. And AFAIC, it tells me nothing of how great or shitty the overall design is.
It just bugs me that too many folks here formulate opinions by extrapolation. A whopperjawed base does (read: should) not make or break the rest of the tower.
In fact, I find the cantilevering rather bold and imposing.

Besides, for how many years were folks shitting all over the architecture of the original Twins: i.e., boring, monolithic, domineering, soulless, what have you. Then suddenly from 9-11 to this very day they're lionized as iconic and everlasting symbols of what this city is all about.

Sometimes I can literally hear the cognitive dissonance emanating from this forum.

If you buy into the idea that it was just a massing model above the base, then I can see your point. Honestly, I hope that's the case, but I doubt it. After 432 Park Ave, I think most are expecting disappointment than not.

I don't know many people who even believe to this day that the Twin Towers were great architecture. I think boring and monolithic are pretty accurate descriptions. However, once they were so horribly destroyed, they did take on a whole new meaning, not just for the people of New York, but for the whole country. There really isn't any cognitive dissonance in that. Symbols of freedom, resilience, or anything else you want to brand to the towers do not need to be aesthetically pleasing.

ILNY Oct 3, 2013 6:04 PM

Let's sum up what we have so far. The base rendering, which is the only official rendering looks good. I actually like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6286458)


Image from Nikolai's video, it's really hard to tell. It can go both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6286860)


And the massing which looks horrible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 (Post 6287176)

We need more official renderings to get better idea how this tower will look like.

uaarkson Oct 3, 2013 6:11 PM

I don't get all the fuss here. I think the design looks promising (what we've seen so far of it). Even if it's a let-down I can't figure out where all this hate is coming from.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.