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