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)

babybackribs2314 Oct 4, 2013 6:15 AM

Sincerely hope RW is correct; would love nothing more than to be wrong in this instance! :)

KevinFromTexas Oct 4, 2013 6:27 AM

The abstract design reminds me of that new tallest proposal for Melbourne in how bizarre it is.

NYguy Oct 4, 2013 1:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6289770)
JMO, but I find a lack of street-to-structure continuity with Citicorp @ 601 Lex.

Well, Citicorp is a singular shaft, and it rises directly over the base. I don't feel a lack of connection there at all, on the contrary you actually see the strong connections.


Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball1992 (Post 6289791)
Posted over on SSC, should provide a little relief for the time being.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=2863

That doesn't really alleviate my concern of the main portion of the tower hanging off of the base and midrise. I expect finer details, but the overall form I do not like. Regardless, I am ready to get construction underway.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6289903)
If you can recall the horrid example that 5 WTC gave us with its tray-like extension over the soon-to-be-rebuilt Greeek Orthodox Church @ WTC, that's a perfect example. Rem Koolhaus is a big proponent of the concept.

A lot of people were horrified by that idea, I was not one of them. The major difference here being that the tower itself did not cantilver, but a lower portion of it did.

Another example of a cantilver is Robert Sterns plan for 45 E. 60th Street. As you can see from the massing below, a portion hangs off to the east, but the tower itself is still centered squarely over the base - it rises straight up as tall towers should. At least in Manhattan.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/151743514/large.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/150525603/large.jpg

CCs77 Oct 4, 2013 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 6289904)
OK, Will withhold my dislike on this tower. If it were a massing model, they should stick to a greyscale model, by putting glass in the model it suggests a more final design. I have no problem with a tower this size near Central Park, I just want it to be something special.

Well obviously we are all discusing conjectures here, so I made mine. Babybricks says that he believes, according of what he heard at the meeting, the design is quite definitive. Robert Walpole of SSC says that according to a person with internal information, it is still a massing model.

I think that it is possible that, since the Nordstrom portion is the most important right now, it is what they have more presion to deliver because Nordstrom is there, involved and pushing for the design, so that portion is the most advanced in project and there's were we see a major amount of detail, meanwhile the tower portion could still be in phase of design, with only the overall mass being already defined.

Some things as the cantilever I think are already definitive, but maybe they are still working in the design of the topping of the tower, and that's why they haven't showed it so much.

Again, that's just a conjecture, yet another more.

vandelay Oct 4, 2013 2:27 PM

If the Park Lane goes tall and gets a classic construction befitting the address, and 220 CPS does the same, that means two classic towers will roughly bookend CPS. That ought to look great. Then there's 15CPW on the west side and Stern's new tower on the east side. It'll be a nice tableau.

JayPro Oct 4, 2013 3:33 PM

A new image from no less than our colleague Babybackribs2314:
http://i.imgur.com/eBZ9SQZ.jpg
And an extrapolation from the same image made by SSC forumer patrykus:
http://img3.picload.org/image/olpraap/ebz9sqzcrop11.jpg
In both images, notice also a darker shaded notch at the upper right corner of the image.
For a pic that's been said by folks on both this site and SSC to show a massing model, this is the most detail I've seen yet for at least the top.

King DenCity Oct 4, 2013 3:51 PM

^Looks a bit better.

aquablue Oct 4, 2013 5:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay (Post 6290312)
If the Park Lane goes tall and gets a classic construction befitting the address, and 220 CPS does the same, that means two classic towers will roughly bookend CPS. That ought to look great. Then there's 15CPW on the west side and Stern's new tower on the east side. It'll be a nice tableau.

No, if park lane is demolished, the building will have to be only 2/3 the size due to zoning regulations. That is what it says in the article on the 220 C. Park South thread..

Also, I like the V shaped crown depicted. At least we won't be getting a boring flat roof if this is the final design.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 4, 2013 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6290402)
A new image from no less than our colleague Babybackribs2314:
http://i.imgur.com/eBZ9SQZ.jpg
And an extrapolation from the same image made by SSC forumer patrykus:
http://img3.picload.org/image/olpraap/ebz9sqzcrop11.jpg
In both images, notice also a darker shaded notch at the upper right corner of the image.
For a pic that's been said by folks on both this site and SSC to show a massing model, this is the most detail I've seen yet for at least the top.

Ya the set back or cut on the crown is there you could clearly see it at the meeting.

babybackribs2314 Oct 4, 2013 7:43 PM

Grasping at straws but I've come down from my ledge after RW's analysis/info. If he is incorrect it will be tragic, but if this is further refined, it won't be that bad, and could even be decent. It still strikes me as odd they wouldn't present an entirely final product at a Landmarks vote, but I guess if they were just getting approval for the cantilever @ 290 feet... which really makes no sense but who knows. From what I saw the residential component looked bleak.

Can't be peeved about the height, but it really would be nice if NYC got something above Freedom Fortress' antenna, just to put their stupid claim to rest for good (though the CTBUH will hopefully do that this November). I think it will happen in Midtown East, but I don't see Park Avenue becoming quite as extensively vertical as 57th. Beyond the current four proposals, there are two other prominent sites that could support supertalls, given the current preference for emaciated towers; I think what may ultimately happen is that after the current boom busts, the tech that is currently being pioneered may become viable for non uber-luxe housing. That would really mark a transformation.

chris08876 Oct 5, 2013 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6290869)
Grasping at straws but I've come down from my ledge after RW's analysis/info. If he is incorrect it will be tragic, but if this is further refined, it won't be that bad, and could even be decent. It still strikes me as odd they wouldn't present an entirely final product at a Landmarks vote, but I guess if they were just getting approval for the cantilever @ 290 feet... which really makes no sense but who knows. From what I saw the residential component looked bleak.

Can't be peeved about the height, but it really would be nice if NYC got something above Freedom Fortress' antenna, just to put their stupid claim to rest for good (though the CTBUH will hopefully do that this November). I think it will happen in Midtown East, but I don't see Park Avenue becoming quite as extensively vertical as 57th. Beyond the current four proposals, there are two other prominent sites that could support supertalls, given the current preference for emaciated towers; I think what may ultimately happen is that after the current boom busts, the tech that is currently being pioneered may become viable for non uber-luxe housing. That would really mark a transformation.

I don't see the boom stopping anytime soon. Especially with the rezonings that have occured, and the proximity influence of Hudson Yards. NYC is a anomaly as it is always growing for some reason which is great. I think the boom will accelerate when it comes to residential's, but possibly geared towards affordable housing. Well, maybe even the uber-luxury market as its red hot. Maybe DeBlassio if he wins will push for more affordable housing. I keep hearing about this demand and lack of housing in the city. Hopefully the market will get more affordable housing because it is just to dam expensive. What the city needs is 1000's of new good homes/apartments that can supply the youth that wants to live there, but goes to the satellite cities like Hoboken or Jersey City due to prices.

NYguy Oct 5, 2013 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6290402)


Well, it's tall, but we get that from the height info. I would expect something better for the top, but I guess it's better than the top of 432 Park. Doesn't look like a roof deck up there, unless that's some sort of crown above it. Further still, it looks pretty slender, and it's a pitty neither this or 432 Park could give us a spire. Spires work best with these slender buildings.

nomad11 Oct 5, 2013 3:18 AM

Hey everyone, new member here (although I've been silently observing this forum for a long time)...I used to work on East 57th street by 3rd ave, and I kinda wish I still did just to see this awesome moment of skyscraper construction take shape.

Anyway, I noticed on one of the massing models that was made over at SSC that the overall tapering/setback scheme is going from west to east (obviously the cantilever is proof of this). And One57 has a similar effect, but from east to west. I know it's still too soon to tell, but I wonder if this is intentionally done to compliment the aesthetic design of One57. I know there are other factors for the cantilever (the deal involving 220 CPS, or the Nordstrom store) but it'd be really cool if the official renders show some architectural "kinship" with One57

aquablue Oct 5, 2013 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6291334)
Well, it's tall, but we get that from the height info. I would expect something better for the top, but I guess it's better than the top of 432 Park. Doesn't look like a roof deck up there, unless that's some sort of crown above it. Further still, it looks pretty slender, and it's a pitty neither this or 432 Park could give us a spire. Spires work best with these slender buildings.

Spires just give the developer a chance to cheat with height and too many begin to look cluttered and ridiculous, especially on slender buildings. I don't think NYC needs any more useless toothpick spires anyway and would be better off with nice crowns instead. The crowns should be iconic though. NYC should not need to be the next "oxford", the city of dreaming spires, it has an ample amount of them already. I don't like the skyline looking all spiky anyway and prefer a more substantial profile. Well that's my opinion as I prefer the Asian approach that emphasizes crowns. I happen to like this crown, it is simple, yet striking and modern. It is rather unique for NYC and rather Asian looking with that V shaped notch. It will bring a dose of modernity to the city that takes so much of its architectural vocabulary from gothic/art-deco, including the spires you so love. It's time for NYC to move on to the 21st century though and ditch the useless spire that is a remnant of these older styles and move onto more modern/futuristic designs like we see being built in Asia. NYC, being the melting pot of architectural styles that it is, needs to have a diverse range of architecture from all periods and that should include current design trends that emphasize striking modern tops without needing to fall back on classic spire elements.

hunser Oct 5, 2013 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6291669)
Spires just give the developer a chance to cheat with height and too many begin to look cluttered and ridiculous, especially on slender buildings. I don't think NYC needs any more useless toothpick spires anyway and would be better off with nice crowns instead. The crowns should be iconic though. NYC should not need to be the next "oxford", the city of dreaming spires, it has an ample amount of them already. I don't like the skyline looking all spiky anyway and prefer a more substantial profile. Well that's my opinion as I prefer the Asian approach that emphasizes crowns. I happen to like this crown, it is simple, yet striking and modern. It is rather unique for NYC and rather Asian looking with that V shaped notch. It will bring a dose of modernity to the city that takes so much of its architectural vocabulary from gothic/art-deco, including the spires you so love. It's time for NYC to move on to the 21st century though and ditch the useless spire that is a remnant of these older styles and move onto more modern/futuristic designs like we see being built in Asia. NYC, being the melting pot of architectural styles that it is, needs to have a diverse range of architecture from all periods and that should include current design trends that emphasize striking modern tops without needing to fall back on classic spire elements.

Asia, especially China is full of spires and / or massive crowns (Ping An, Shanghai Tower). But that's another topic.

As for New York, yes it has a lot of spires which imho look good on the skyline. 57th street, where all future supertalls will have a flat roof, could really use a nice spire in order to make the skyline more dynamic.

aquablue Oct 5, 2013 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6291674)
Asia, especially China is full of spires and / or massive crowns (Ping An, Shanghai Tower). But that's another topic.

As for New York, yes it has a lot of spires which imho look good on the skyline. 57th street, where all future supertalls will have a flat roof, could really use a nice spire in order to make the skyline more dynamic.

Shanghai Tower has a crown, not a stupid toothpick spire.

hunser Oct 5, 2013 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6291684)
Shanghai Tower has a crown, not a stupid toothpick spire.

I know, it's 80m tall. Way too tall for my taste.

NYguy Oct 5, 2013 1:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6291669)
Spires just give the developer a chance to cheat with height.

Absolutely ridiculous. I don't care what's being built in other cities, this is about New York. And traditionally, New York's - and the world's - tallest buildings have had spires.
It's what has shaped New York's skyline and made if famous the world over. A brief history of our tallest, and the spires that topped them and defined the skyline.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lding_crop.jpg_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tower_crop.jpg_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fixed_crop.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._York_City.jpg_http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj...jo77o1_500.jpg_http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li...z2qqo1_500.jpg
http://decoarchitecture.tumblr.com/p...tage-photo-via
http://decoarchitecture.tumblr.com/p...tage-photo-via


Of course, there are many more examples of spires, old and new, that rise on the skyline, but it was only when the WTC was built that New York's peak was flattened. Now that it seems
the city is reliving some of it's glorious skyscraper past, it would be nice if some of the architecture reflected that. We'll get it with the Tower Verre. We'll get it with 111 W. 57th.
Even with a few others. But at this point it seems the tallest towers to roof will be less inspiring (I know). There is hope on the horizon though.

But we've always known somewhat that this tower would have a spire. Whatever eventually happens, this tower at least seems to be moving towards the construction phase.
And we will watch it rise skyward just as we've watched the others. It would be nice if we got a cam to watch, but I don't think that's Barnett's style.

Blaze23 Oct 5, 2013 3:09 PM

I'm not quite a fan of "cheating" spires either. Putting a stick on top of a building ( a la ny times tower or 1WTC) doesn't cut it for me. But what we're talking about is spires that follow the pattern of the building and add some dinstinct features to it like an ornament (say chrysler building, ESB or even Burj Khalifa). This is the kind of spires I would've hoped the next tallest building in the city, especially the tallest on the already tall 57th street corridor should have. But it is what it is and I just hope that what we see is not the final design; I too I'm glad to see that this one seem to be moving forward tho.
By the way all the tallest buildings in Asia have spires (check the diagrams), so not a great example there.

Duck From NY Oct 5, 2013 7:58 PM

Personally, I don't count antennas for height, and only count spires that are thick enough (like ESB, 1250ft), so in my mind, WTC1 is a flat-top.

I would prefer a spire myself, or at least an ornamental top (with the mechanical floors within) that isn't completely rectangular/square.

If they're going to go all nuts with that cantilever in this building, why not put a cantilevered spire that would hang 1000+ feet over the center of the base? Maybe make it a half-ovular shape, starting 10 or more floors below the roof.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:00 AM.

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