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)

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 12:21 AM

I wonder if this tower will still have the open air deck at the top for residents.

MarshallKnight Oct 2, 2013 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6286618)
...or having to sit through any buttpipe NIMBY claptrap during the meeting.

Or, hopefully, they're taking their turn at the podium to battle opponents and share their enthusiasm for tall skyscrapers in the face of nimbyism.

supertallchaser Oct 2, 2013 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6286623)
I wonder if this tower will still have the open air deck at the top for residents.

i wish it could be an observation deck

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarshallKnight (Post 6286624)
Or, hopefully, they're taking their turn at the podium to battle opponents and share their enthusiasm for tall skyscrapers in the face of nimbyism.

They'll be stoned out of the place.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6286622)
@NYGuy;

But wasn't 111's height finalized at 1300' to the top design element? That'd be a 123' diff.

I didn't see that anywhere. The figure I mostly remember is something like 1,361 ft. But even a 100 ft difference isn't really a lot at that height.

I have to say, 1,423 ft is a good height, and what everyone thought 432 Park was going to be. It's more than the 1,200 ft mentioned by the architect. It can claim title of tallest from its rivals (until, almost inevitably something taller comes along).

mistermetAJ Oct 2, 2013 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6286612)
I might be reading too much into it but I'm not sensing a lot of enthusiasm from those guys at the meeting. Hope I'm wrong

When I heard its another flat roof all my enthusiasm went out the window. Height cannot mask mediocre architecture and glass + flat roof usually mean mediocre. Good thing Shop saved the day with their tower.

hunser Oct 2, 2013 12:25 AM

1,423ft ain't bad but I really hoped for a solid 1500 footer. I guess it could be worse so I guess I should be happy. Building on demand and making $$$ doesn't get a megatall in New York, at least not for now.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 2, 2013 12:25 AM

No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6286636)
No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

That's promising. How many setbacks?

JayPro Oct 2, 2013 12:37 AM

I've seen the work that the archtects of record *haven't even started on yet* on their site; and y'all would be flabberghasted what these dudes can do with a simple "box" form.
Just a matter of opinion, tho: I believe the choice to go flat-roofed could be a gesture of deference to Lady ESB's status and prominence.

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6286651)
I believe the choice to go flat-roofed could be a gesture of deference to Lady ESB's status and prominence.

I doubt if. At that height, this tower would dominate the ESB, regardless. I think it has more to do with space at the top of the building. And let's not forget Barnett insisting this tower would have no spire or "gimmick" at the top. A distinctive crown would be nice.

yankeesfan1000 Oct 2, 2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6286636)
No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

You get some photos?

ILNY Oct 2, 2013 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6286630)
They'll be stoned out of the place.

I have to say, 1,423 ft is a good height, and what everyone thought 432 Park was going to be. It's more than the 1,200 ft mentioned by the architect. It can claim title of tallest from its rivals (until, almost inevitably something taller comes along).

I was hoping for 1500+ footer but I will take 1423. Like you said, this will be the tallest building in the city. I like the base of the tower, it has potential to be interesting. Lets get some pictures now.

babybackribs2314 Oct 2, 2013 1:00 AM

I have video; will try and upload.

Very disappointed with this tower; if you made Mumbai's World One more cubic, they would be twins.

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

The massing between the various sections is quite awkward and it's literally like each component was designed with its clients' needs in mind then awkwardly jumbled together; the retail space is fine enough but the hotel sits awkwardly on top, and the residential portion juts out from the side to reach the tower's pinnacle.

All in all it was a boring meeting until the Nordstrom Tower came up, but I'm very disappointed the concern over the cantilever touched on views and shadows and the Arts Building, but not on WHY the cantilever is there to begin with - and several people afterwards complimented me on my comment. Seriously ticked off.

scalziand Oct 2, 2013 1:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6286636)
No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432


Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 6063030)
BTW, I had a terrible dream last night. The design for 225w57 was revealed, and it was just another box like 432park.:runaway:

:uhh::(

So my worst fears weren't realised at least.

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 1:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6286682)
The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

How dare you ask a relevant question. Anyway, we knew the tower itself would be on one side or the other because of the column free spaces Nordstrom wanted. But as you suggested the tower could have been pushed to the other side. From the descriptions, I'm guessing it would look better without any cantilever.


http://mgross.com/wp-content/uploads...10/extell2.jpg
http://mgross.com/gripebox/scuse-me-...ower-revealed/

supertallchaser Oct 2, 2013 1:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6286682)
I have video; will try and upload.

Very disappointed with this tower; if you made Mumbai's World One more cubic, they would be twins.

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

The massing between the various sections is quite awkward and it's literally like each component was designed with its clients' needs in mind then awkwardly jumbled together; the retail space is fine enough but the hotel sits awkwardly on top, and the residential portion juts out from the side to reach the tower's pinnacle.

All in all it was a boring meeting until the Nordstrom Tower came up, but I'm very disappointed the concern over the cantilever touched on views and shadows and the Arts Building, but not on WHY the cantilever is there to begin with - and several people afterwards complimented me on my comment. Seriously ticked off.

this tower sounds very awkward and im hearing mixed reactions.is the facade atleast decent? :???:

babybackribs2314 Oct 2, 2013 1:12 AM

Uploading video via DropBox; will post shortly. Don't hold your breath.

UTEPman Oct 2, 2013 1:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6286682)
I have video; will try and upload.

Very disappointed with this tower; if you made Mumbai's World One more cubic, they would be twins.

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

The massing between the various sections is quite awkward and it's literally like each component was designed with its clients' needs in mind then awkwardly jumbled together; the retail space is fine enough but the hotel sits awkwardly on top, and the residential portion juts out from the side to reach the tower's pinnacle.

All in all it was a boring meeting until the Nordstrom Tower came up, but I'm very disappointed the concern over the cantilever touched on views and shadows and the Arts Building, but not on WHY the cantilever is there to begin with - and several people afterwards complimented me on my comment. Seriously ticked off.

I wasn't getting the warm 'n' fuzzies with this tower about a month ago. Sucks, but it is what it is....

McSky Oct 2, 2013 1:24 AM

As soon as I heard that 220 CPS might be taller than 577 feet I thought they would push this tower as far east as possible, to maximize views of the Park. Didn't imagine they would propose a cantilever for the bulk of the tower, if that's the case.

It's hard to believe that they wouldn't add 30 feet to this to make it the tallest roof in North America. But 1423 feet is still quite a behemoth.

King DenCity Oct 2, 2013 2:03 AM

Such a disappointment :(
I hope another tower comes along and overtakes the 1500' mark and SOON.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:10 AM.

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