SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 117 of 407
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

Crawford Jul 15, 2014 2:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6655234)
I don't think so. The current skyline transformation is even bigger than the one in the 1920s/30s.
It's bigger, but proportionally smaller. NYC had a small skyline prior to the 1920's, so obviously the radical transformation of the entire city was an enormous change. That type of change will never happen again in terms of radical reimagining of the city. Even if 200 supertalls are built in the next couple of decades, the city will be essentially the same basic layout.

But obviously there weren't as many skyscrapers built back then as now. There were only a few supertalls, and not that many 700+ towers.

NYguy Jul 15, 2014 2:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by techchallenger (Post 6655208)
I love your enthusiasm, but the above is meant as hyperbole right?


He's accurate. The transformation is larger now in both scale and scope. we didn't even have a Hudson Yards back then, and certainly Long Island City had nowhete the scale of a skyline its getting now. Same thing for Brooklyn. The towers along 57th street alone were enougj to alarm the MAS. And we're really just getting into it.

pico44 Jul 17, 2014 6:39 PM
My first inclination after seeing the new renderings was that this was mediocre architecture. After thinking about it some more and seeing additional renderings, I have decided that this is not merely mediocre, it is below average; and thus infuriating. Poor architecture is usually not a big deal, in and of itself. There is a lot of mediocre-to-bad architecture in New York. But given the prominence of location, the size of the building, the stated desire for a landmark by the developer, and the undeserved reputation of the architect; this building is as epic a failure in New York City development history as I have ever seen. It is just awful. First and foremost, Smith and Barnett should be ashamed. The LLC's that eventually purchase these apartments should be ashamed. All New Yorkers should be ashamed of this building. What an awful display.

And this is coming from one of the most ardently devoted NYC boosters here.

sparkling Jul 17, 2014 7:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6658770)
My first inclination after seeing the new renderings was that this was below average architecture. After thinking about it some more and seeing additional renderings, I have decided that this is not merely below average, it is mediocre; and thus infuriating. Poor architecture is usually not a big deal, in and of itself. There is a lot of mediocre-to-bad architecture in New York. But given the prominence of location, the size of the building, the stated desire for a landmark by the developer, and the undeserved reputation of the architect; this building is as epic a failure in New York City development history as I have ever seen. It is just awful. First and foremost, Smith and Barnett should be ashamed. The LLC's that eventually purchase these apartments should be ashamed. All New Yorkers should be ashamed of this building. What an awful display.

And this is coming from one of the most ardently devoted NYC boosters here.
I am ok with the building-different people different tastes. However, I loved your reference to the LLCs- the big elephant in the room that very few people talk about but can potentially undermine the buoyancy of the ultra luxury market.

chris08876 Jul 18, 2014 11:30 AM
Foundation Work Begins at 225 West 57th Street and 220 Central Park South
JULY 18TH 2014

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...225-W-57th.jpg
Credit: 225 West 57th Street and 220 Central Park South, photo by Andrew McKeon
================================
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/07/con...ark-south.html

Perklol Jul 18, 2014 1:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6653245)
You are convoluting architectural criticism with an engineering feat. The engineering can impressive and still be a terrible architectural design, which this seems to be. The same can be said about 432 Park.
Specifically 111 57th is unique, no?

mistermetAJ Jul 18, 2014 3:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6659903)
Specifically 111 57th is unique, no?
111 57th is an engineering marvel AND beautiful architecture. It is contemporary-contextualism at its best. It is a perfect modern interpretation of a classic New York skyscraper. It respectfully pushes the envelope and acknowledges the rich history of its surroundings. It stands out and blends in at the same time.

225 57th and 432 Park are no comparison. They match as engineering marvels, but are hardly more than architectural banality and laziness.

NYguy Jul 18, 2014 4:45 PM
It's exciting to watch the beginnings of these two soaring skyscrapers simultaneously.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6659903)
Specifically 111 57th is unique, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6660026)
225 57th and 432 Park are no comparison. They match as engineering marvels, but are hardly more than architectural banality and laziness.

Leave that to the other threads please.

chris08876 Jul 18, 2014 4:49 PM
I think this should be moved to the supertall construction forum? Looks UC to me. Concrete is being poured next door at 220 Central Park South. Probably both of these should be moved. With Nordstrom, heavy duty foundation work is occurring. This baby is set to rise.

Submariner Jul 18, 2014 5:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6660193)
I think this should be moved to the supertall construction forum? Looks UC to me. Concrete is being poured next door at 220 Central Park South. Probably both of these should be moved. With Nordstrom, heavy duty foundation work is occurring. This baby is set to rise.
Generally, U/C is for towers actually rising. Nordstrom still has a way to go before that will occur.

kingsdl76 Jul 18, 2014 10:52 PM
I feel as though its only a matter of time, perhaps a couple years, before we see a proposal for a 2000 ft tower in New York. The verticality and diversity that New York is headed for is amazing: these are exciting times.
A decade ago Nordstrom tower would've been the worlds tallest building upon completion.

Michael12374 Jul 18, 2014 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6660026)

225 57th and 432 Park are no comparison. They match as engineering marvels, but are hardly more than architectural banality and laziness.
I actually like 432. Its not just another "glass box" that people always complain about.

kingsdl76 Jul 19, 2014 3:41 AM
Diagram update?
 
I was hoping to see the SSP diagram updated with the new height for Nordstrom but nothing yet... I'm hoping to see the adjustment soon!.. :photographer:

Michael12374 Jul 19, 2014 4:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsdl76 (Post 6661028)
I was hoping to see the SSP diagram updated with the new height for Nordstrom but nothing yet... I'm hoping to see the adjustment soon!.. :photographer:
the height is updated if thats what you mean. The drawing isnt yet.

chris08876 Jul 19, 2014 4:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsdl76 (Post 6660732)
I feel as though its only a matter of time, perhaps a couple years, before we see a proposal for a 2000 ft tower in New York. The verticality and diversity that New York is headed for is amazing: these are exciting times.
A decade ago Nordstrom tower would've been the worlds tallest building upon completion.
I think the natural growth aspect of the skyline is important and yes, I agree. A 600m or mega-tall is coming soon. Something mixed used would be nice, and probably the only way it would make such a height based on demand. If you notice, the proposals, which are all making fantastic progress from the proposal stage to the UC stage, are all progressively taller. The type of height that doesn't jump out at you like the Burj Khalifa. In Nordstrom's case, the height has a buffer. That buffer being the other supertalls that will rise on 57th street or within the vicinity. This kinda makes it look fluid within the skyline, and it doesn't have such a dominant effect. Although if you ask me, I would hope a megatall occurs near the HY. I would like downtown to have it, but IDK where such a tower would fit. The vicinity of HY would make a perfect candidate I feel.

kingsdl76 Jul 19, 2014 4:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6661064)
I think the natural growth aspect of the skyline is important and yes, I agree. A 600m or mega-tall is coming soon. Something mixed used would be nice, and probably the only way it would make such a height based on demand. If you notice, the proposals, which are all making fantastic progress from the proposal stage to the UC stage, are all progressively taller. The type of height that doesn't jump out at you like the Burj Khalifa. In Nordstrom's case, the height has a buffer. That buffer being the other supertalls that will rise on 57th street or within the vicinity. This kinda makes it look fluid within the skyline, and it doesn't have such a dominant effect. Although if you ask me, I would hope a megatall occurs near the HY. I would like downtown to have it, but IDK where such a tower would fit. The vicinity of HY would make a perfect candidate I feel.
I agree 100%!.. HY would make the most sense and the views from that particular area of manhattan would be astonishing! Imagine being 1800 - 2000 ft in the air looking down over Manhattan in all its glory. The HY is in a unique area of the Island -- its sits away from the bulk of midtown and dowtown, thus giving you an unmatched panorama :cheers:

Michael12374 Jul 19, 2014 6:15 PM
217 West 57th street is officially in the "under construction" category.
I never thought it would happen:cheers:

KevinFromTexas Jul 19, 2014 9:20 PM
Not quite under construction just yet. They're still digging. Once the foundations start to be poured or drilled, then it'll be under construction.

Michael12374 Jul 19, 2014 9:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 6661641)
Not quite under construction just yet. They're still digging. Once the foundations start to be poured or drilled, then it'll be under construction.
ok. I just saw the database and diagram and it says that Nordstrom and 220 are both under construction. And Yimby said that they both were officially under construction. But I understand what you mean.

Onn Jul 20, 2014 2:10 AM
There is apparently a drawing of this building waiting to go on the New York City Diagram from someone on SSC (P2000), just in case anyone didn't notice. Would be nice to get that up!


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:33 PM.
Viewing Page 117 of 407
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.