|
Also, don't forget that it's a more or less consistently proven fact that renders for a variety of reasons do little justice to what fleshes out.
That alone should be cause for great optimism |
The height of this thing probably deserved something more special, but it is what it is. It appears they squeezed every last drop from the air rights with the boxy shape.
|
are we sure that is to be blue glass?
it looks wrapped up. its just one photo, so we need more facade pics. |
Quote:
|
The glass is silvery according to the renderings. If its blue glass I'll be disappointed. My username may say differently, but I'm actually getting bored of that color on towers.
|
It's covered. It could still be blue (not likely) but we won't know it until it's uncovered. I say go with the renderings.
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212354.jpg http://m0.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211924.jpg |
Hemisphere's Tallest Skyscraper Will Have a "Village Green" & Pool Deck Designed by H
Hemisphere's Tallest Skyscraper Will Have a "Village Green" & Pool Deck Designed by HMWhite
Oct 4, 2017 https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...-hmwhite/13824 Quote:
https://ds3.cityrealty.com/img/3cdc1...park-tower.jpg https://ds1.cityrealty.com/img/c0c14...k-tower-03.jpg https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/00a39...30e+1004++0+60 https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/7b4cf...dfc+1004++0+60 https://ds3.cityrealty.com/img/092d0...streeyt-03.jpg https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/a9346...k-tower-03.jpg https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/43410...rktower-04.jpg More info and images in the post here. |
Wow! That outdoor common space is amazing. Perhaps the nicest I've seen at a large condo building.
|
Kind of an aside here...maybe...
...but it's almost ha-ha funny how they make 111W57/Steinway look way shorter than realistically presented. I mean I get it..."Game on" and all that marketing banter; but the fabric of credibility can be stretched only so far. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You're both right. I caught myself in the error and tried to delete the post after the fact.
:oops: ...But One57 still looks smaller in that pano than it really is. |
^^ You folks remember how 252 East 57th initially had a blue coat of plastic or some similar sort of material on its glass facade and many people who didn't have the knowledge of it went down fast and furious? And do you remember how the whole series of disappointment turned out beautifully with the coat once peeled off? You do remember, right?
PS: The diagram for this beauty has been updated on SSP, go check it out ;) |
Quote:
|
It s not a hémisphère tallest building in case that it has a spire it will becomes the tallest building
|
From earlier today. More glass.
It looks like the concrete has made it past the first mechanical floor of the tower, at around half the height of 220 CPS https://i.imgur.com/f82zVdU.jpg https://i.imgur.com/bmBiZb0.jpg https://i.imgur.com/p2LiAQl.jpg |
|
|
Does anyone know what the true floor count of this is? I'm seeing, 99, 95 even 131. What is the actual amount and not the marketing gimmick amount?
|
If the developer is Chinese, expect 20 additional floors. :haha:
Agreed - 131 seems exaggerated. |
Quote:
|
It’s 131. Actual floors. I was speaking to an architect on this project last week about it. He also said the spire has zero chance of coming back into the design. It was a choice made by the design team after negative chatter regarding the 1,775’ number and apparent one-uppsmanship. They wanted nothing to do with dethroning the Freedom Tower. The cost savings was just a nice perk.
|
Quote:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01 You can also get a floor-by-floor breakdown in the Schedule A http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES311522900 rkemalbum https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/3...e887cdb4_h.jpg |
^Hmm. The guy smeed to know what he was taking about :shrug: I should have grilled him more.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now that's just plain insulting. Durst dethroned (and uglified) WTC-1 before it was even finished. I've said this countless times before but Durst's decision to remove the architectural radome that made the spire a spire in the first place leaves WTC-1 a 1373 foot tower and currently 4th tallest in the US. CTBUH can say what it wants (caving as it did to "the Freedom Tower must be 1776' and tallest" BS), but it doesn't change the truth that the spantenna on top of WTC-1 is not a spire (by CTBUH's own rules!), it is a guyed mast with no architectural elements except for the beacon housing. The most despicable case of value engineering in history |
Quote:
|
Quote:
lensepix https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4456/3...b55d56b2_k.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4512/3...f207d711_k.jpg |
|
"the spantenna on top of WTC-1" - gramsjdg
spantenna, that word always makes me laugh . . but 1792, 1776, 1373 . . so what ! . . doesn't change the height of the actual building for me . . actually, the preposterous post 9-11 fake-news height-contest, that made the gangling, outsized monster-spantenna happen, was worth it . . 'cause having this steampunk-ish "spantenna", is way better, than not having it . . without it, 1WTC would be more boring and less focal . . usually "more is more", when considering crowns for tall towers . . (except on minimally "less is more" rectilinear structures . . like old WTC, Secretariat, Trump-UN, etc.) but at that historical time, we needed this exagerated-type of "More" confidence . . the 1WTC radome-covered "spire" version didn't look any better, really . . It was still spantenna-grade in my book . . sorta like an overly simplified, elongated pointy lozenge-shaped whatchamacallit . . reminding one of a streamlined, mid-century cheap-plastic fishing-line float . . or perhaps a white polyethylene ice-cream-machine wand in a DQ (dairy queen) . . it didn't look very architectural . . or at all integrated with the rest of the building . . I loved the now-scrapped antenna, designed for this CPT building SO much though . . it pulled the entire unresolved mediocre mass beneath it, emphatically right up into the sky and defined this building's exact purpose . . a 21st century asymmetrical architectural-form of a great city soaring . . all from being "deco-fied" by its modern deco-ish crown ornament . . an architecturally ennobling shape of crossbars . . that fit so perfectly into the crown's NE corner niche . . not about dethrowning anything . . tallest in its own right, 1775 (or whatever number) . . no few extra feet of spantenna needed to be tallest in America . . Chinese buyers may not like that type of NYC confidence crowning "their" building . . but most of us New Yorkers do ! . . |
Don't get me wrong, I agree the WTC-1 design needs a spire, which it will have if a future building manager decides to actually complete construction.
Absent any major crown decoration, CPT needs one too, (height competition aside) |
Unfortunately, the symbolism of WTC1 is going to restrain future development in NYC for at least the next 50 years in my opinion. No developer is going to want to dethrone WTC1 but as we can all see with current construction, space demands require creeping higher and higher. 7 years ago, no one was building anything close to 1,400 feet except WTC1. Now we have at least 3 towers exceeding that height, possibly 4 if 80 South Park St ever gets approved. It is inevitable that towers will climb higher and approach 1,776 eventually in NYC. Now I also believe the US will eventually see it's first 2000 foot tower and I also believe that Chicago is going to likely be the one to pull it off. Chicago doesn't have that "respectful fist bump" to WTC1 that NYC seems to have to deal with. Now the good news is that what is going on with WTC1 is simply a gentlemens agreement of sorts. It's not enacted into law like DC has with no buildings being higher than the Washington Monument or the street width to building height ratio. As a result of that law, DC is forever left with high rises. But there is always someone looking to skirt any rule and even law. Even though Rosslyn, VA is within sight of the Washington Monument and only across the river, there are several towers there over 300 feet when the DC itself has a law of only 130 feet.
|
Quote:
Developers will build what makes the most sense. They don't have SSP-style height considerations. This is a very niche, SSP-nerd discussion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
NONE of that makes any sense. I'll just assume you are not aware of how or why things get built in New York. The biggest deterrent to anything taller than the Freedom Tower getting built is financing. Plain and simple. Developers can't just say "I want to build a taller tower, and thus it is so". Money talks. https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba6uHKaH...-by=cityrealty https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram...NzU1OA%3D%3D.2 https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram...NzQ3Mg%3D%3D.2 |
Quote:
Sorry, but no. Non-logic. We have no idea what will occur in the next 50 years, but, whatever happens, it will be determined by bank financing and profitability, not some "gentleman's agreement" on building height. NYC developers may be many things, but they aren't "gentlemen". |
You fellas do realize we are having this discussion on a thread where the developer removed a spire after hearing negative chatter about it approaching 1776 right? That would kinda support what I am saying. Either way, I can certainly respect and appreciate all opinions. I am not the kind of guy who insists my opinion is the correct one. This world would be pretty freakin boring if we all agreed on everything. Anywho, back to this tower.
|
This is a supertower that can be described thus:
A spire or not actually makes less than zero difference. Valid arguments can be made for and against both possibilities. I'm just gratified to see what's unfolding given the protracted drama that gave birth to it. |
Quote:
Developers don't care about this kind of stuff. We are in a very specific bubble on SSP, and 99.9% of people don't care about this stuff. While I have no inside info on this project, I guarantee Barnett isn't sweating over building heights. He might not even know the exact building height of his own buildings. If there's a spire, or no spire, I am totally certain that 1 WTC plays no role whatsoever. Barnett will do whatever he thinks makes him the most money. |
Quote:
http://a4.pbase.com/g9/06/102706/2/1...5.fGbHDeYY.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...HA7U3rE.v7.JPG But get ahold of yourself. You're talking New York City, where there is a variety of opinions on everything. There will be no agreements, "gentleman's" or otherwise, that nothing should rise higher than the Freedom Tower, just as there are no agreements that nothing should rise higher than the Sears Tower in Chicago. It just hasn't happened yet. |
The earlier version was very... phallic. :uhh:
|
Quote:
|
Either way... this will a nice addition.
|
These towers really did a number on the sun in the park....
John Collins https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4524/3...737a940d_b.jpg Everyody's watching and waiting... PW_Photo https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4540/3...1e45edf9_h.jpg |
In that 2nd pic, look at those shadows. The horror. I can see those people melting in pain.
Although the 1st pic is what the NIMBYS thought the shadow apocalypse would look like. But all is well. Everyone is happy, and those folks in the 2nd pic are facing CPT, as its 5 pm, and praying to thy lord Barnett. Barnett and Stern might have not raised the fishes and the lobes, but they sure as hell resurrected the glorious super talls. |
Such an awkward looking thing, an even bigger shame now that I've seen what could have been. The shadow discussion always cracks me up, though, given how slender that thing is - but living in Park Slope I often overhear Food Co-op types complaining about potential shadows from 9 Dekalb, even though it's a mile away and approximately 3' wide.
|
These things are so tall that even from blocks away it they look like they're right in front of you.
|
Quote:
|
Coming out nicely. 220 CPS looks stunning. I think in terms of architecture beauty in a ranking, IMO; Stienway > Verre > 220 CPS > CPT.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4578/...a6cf0390_k.jpg IMGP1683 by jaeseung, on Flickr |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 1:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev