SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT

Viewing Page 289 of 407

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 8347479)

You must mean in the renders? One57 still has no crown lighting and its been finished for four years. Value engineering at its best.

I know. It was the thing I was most excited about and it is just a no show. The building is kind of boring without it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 8348151)

I know. It was the thing I was most excited about and it is just a no show. The building is kind of boring without it.

If you look here they were actually on recently:
http://www.yimbyforums.com/t/new-yor...-floors/254/54

Cool- that's good news! It's true there are very few (if any) photos of it lit up.... :cheers:

...there may be hope for the spire after all

[QUOTE=NYguy;8349218]^ Yeah, it comes on. I guess people don't think so because there haven't been a lot of photos of it.

I guess I am just looking for it to be on consistently every night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 8349404)

I guess I am just looking for it to be on consistently every night.

We all are.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/18/179...il-legislation

Bill aims to curb supertall shadows in NYC parks
The bill would establish a task force to study the effects of tall buildings on parks

By Amy Plitt
Oct 18, 2018

Quote:

A new bill introduced in the City Council this week calls for establishing a task force to review any properties that have the potential to cast shadows across city parks.

City Council member Mark Levine, whose district includes neighborhoods in northern Manhattan, first introduced the idea back in 2015, when many of the supertalls that have come to dominate the southern end of Central Park were little more than holes in the ground. But now, with four of those cloud-piercing buildings nearing completion (and one—220 Central Park South—that just misses supertall status by about 30 feet), the council member felt it was the right time to make protecting parks from shadows a priority.

“[In 2015] these buildings weren’t up,” Levine tells Curbed. “Now, everyone can look up in the sky and see exactly the impact on Central Park that we had feared. … The threat is no longer hypothetical.”

Quote:

The towers along Central Park South do cast long shadows that reach well into the park, although according to a New York Times study from 2016, their relative skinniness means that the darkness will “pass through the park at an incredibly fast pace, like a minute hand on a clock.” But while Central Park is what initially spurred Levine to act, he sees this as a preventative measure.

“It’s really aimed at forcing a conversation about solutions, and at ensuring the city monitors this issue in a way they haven’t before,” Levine says. “There’s just no accounting for parks and sunlight in any aspect of our zoning or construction approval process.” (Indeed, searching the zoning code text brings up scant references to sunlight or shadows, and only in reference to pedestrian plazas.)

Quote:

Levine’s bill calls for establishing a task force, comprising officials across various city agencies (including the Department of Buildings and HPD), that would “study the effect of shadows cast on parks under the jurisdiction 5 of the department by new or proposed building construction,” per the legislation language. There are no specifics included on how tall or big a development would need to be to qualify; instead, the bill calls for the task force to study projects that have the potential to cast shadows, and issue recommendations to the mayor (which could include proposed changes to developments).

The Municipal Art Society, which has followed what it calls the “accidental skyline” issue for several years, issued a statement to Curbed in support of the legislation. “Protecting light and air is a matter of public health and has been a planning priority since the earliest days of the skyscraper—New York’s original 1916 Zoning Resolution was largely predicated on addressing precisely this concern,” Elizabeth Goldstein, MAS’s president, said. “As New York becomes denser than ever, developing a formal understanding of the impact of shadows on our public spaces is an obvious and necessary next step. We urge Council Members to pass this bill.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8349997)

I actually agree with this shadow task force. As long as they are logical, and not merely blocking anything with some height, then I agree this is for the well-being of an extraordinarily stacked city.

Hey, if it means more skinny supertalls, I'm all for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy (Post 8350174)

It's a bunch of grandstanding about nothing, in order to look like they are actually doing something. Shadows over the parks is hardly an issue the vast majority of New Yorkers or park goers in general are concerned with. As he stated, the evidence is now before us. They should put this grandstanding to work for actual real life issues that will have some impact.

Already such a monster. This thing will pass ESB in roof height any day now if it hasn't already.

Who here thinks Barnett will pull out the spire last minute and go higher than 1WTC? :shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8352271)

Already such a monster. This thing will pass ESB in roof height any day now if it hasn't already.

Who here thinks Barnett will pull out the spire last minute and go higher than 1WTC? :shrug:

He could, and would if he thought it would sell more condos. But I don't think he cares about it that much. We'll see.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpKR55Tj...orkcityfanpage

https://scontent-ams3-1.cdninstagram...ODk1Nw%3D%3D.2

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 8352296)

He could, and would if he thought it would sell more condos. But I don't think he cares about it that much. We'll see.

Right, it's already the tallest residential tower in the world and the highest roof in the world outside of Asia.

Buuut, if the spire went a little higher it could surpass CN Tower in Toronto as the tallest freestanding structure too. Most people probably care less about that though and it may not be worth the effort.

Am I the only one who thinks that the wavy glass on the base looks really cheap and tacky? And yeah, this thing would be much better with the spire

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8352325)

Am I the only one who thinks that the wavy glass on the base looks really cheap and tacky?

I could take it or leave it. This is what the completed version will look like...

North
http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...dE4zg7.n5b.JPG

South
http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...ndC6b2.n6b.JPG

http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...026_113733.jpg

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpK_aISA...n-by=meenahkim

https://scontent-lhr3-1.cdninstagram...NjM0OA%3D%3D.2

You had to wait until Vista got past its glass fails to post that. I see there are still concerns about it too. Don't worry I'm sure Vista's curvy glass problems will all work out.

Great to know we get a tower regardless of spire or not will be taller than the Sears/Willis tower in Chi-town. If this was an office tower observatory think of the views, hopefully someone in the future will give us a sneak at what it looks like to look at the city higher than 1 WTC.

Viewing Page 289 of 407