SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Submariner Feb 6, 2014 4:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miesian (Post 6439545)
Does that mean you don't like it?:rolleyes:

It's just...so so. I don't hate it (though I'd feel a bit nervous living at the top of an 1100 foot tower perched slightly over the edge of a 300 foot tower) but I just feel like it could be so much more. The ESB wouldn't be the icon it is if it were a simple box - part of it's appeal is it's design. The only reason the twin towers were so well known was because at the time of their design they were the tallest buildings in the world but more importantly, there were two of them right next to one another. Plus, 9/11 helped cement them into our memories - the "dead rock star" effect, if you will.

FMIII Feb 6, 2014 5:47 PM

If there is something that I have learned on this site, it is that constraints (lot size, air rights, budget, profitability, market demand etc...) are the dominant factors to what can be built in the city. Architects, good or bad, have to adapt themselves to those constraints.

If all buildings north of this tower were landmarked, Extell wouldn't have had to use this trick to maximize views and the architect could have come up with something totally different. The cantilever is essential to sell units at the highest price and I don't see how an architect could come up with a, let say, postmodern design that would'nt look even more out of place than this one.

In itself, although I like it, the design of this tower doesn't make any sense. If we keep in mind why we are getting this, good luck to come up with a design fundamentally better.

NYguy Feb 7, 2014 1:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6439727)
If there is something that I have learned on this site, it is that constraints (lot size, air rights, budget, profitability, market demand etc...) are the dominant factors to what can be built in the city. Architects, good or bad, have to adapt themselves to those constraints.

If all buildings north of this tower were landmarked, Extell wouldn't have had to use this trick to maximize views and the architect could have come up with something totally different. The cantilever is essential to sell units at the highest price and I don't see how an architect could come up with a, let say, postmodern design that would'nt look even more out of place than this one.


That's not true. It's even explained by the ASL in their support for the cantilever that it's not essential to Extell's development...
http://theartstudentsleague.org/Link...g%3D&tabid=396

I also don't by "architectural constraints" as an excuse. You wanna see a location that's hard to build in? How about inside the courtyard of a landmark (see 111 West 57th). New York is covered in sites that have one constrain or another, there is no easy build in the city, unless you are building on a blank canvass like the WTC or Hudson Yards.

This tower is just simply too convoluted in design as is. I would much more prefer a box that rose straight up to this tower that doesn't know what it wants to be.

Remember the days when Extell built One57? Seems like a lifetime ago.


This is something more suited for Jersey City.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387244/original.jpg

Submariner Feb 7, 2014 1:31 AM

Would it cost more per square foot to build without the cantilever?

scalziand Feb 7, 2014 5:04 AM

^Probably, anytime you go for a more slender structure, it's going to be less efficient.

FMIII Feb 7, 2014 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6440648)
That's not true. It's even explained by the ASL in their support for the cantilever that it's not essential to Extell's development...
http://theartstudentsleague.org/Link...g%3D&tabid=396

That is true, the cantilever is not essential. However, for Extell, it is a more profitable option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6440648)
I also don't by "architectural constraints" as an excuse. You wanna see a location that's hard to build in? How about inside the courtyard of a landmark (see 111 West 57th).

111 W57th won't have a 1000 footer built simultaneously before it. If it was the case, I am not even sure that this building would be planned. And if it was, there would be much more space available at the top and, as a result, a probably much less pleasant design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6440648)
Remember the days when Extell built One57? Seems like a lifetime ago.

Although De Portzamparc did a pretty good job, we have to keep in mind that the footprint shape has dictated the overall design. And, as in the case of 111 W57th, no supertall to block the view before it.

In the case of the Nordstrom tower, The only way to get something better would be for Extell to amend specification given to the architect (i.e to put design before profitability).

ablerock Feb 7, 2014 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6440648)

This tower is just simply too convoluted in design as is. I would much more prefer a box that rose straight up to this tower that doesn't know what it wants to be.

Agreed. It's kind of bold and timid at the same time, which is not good. It's also physically huge and just looks huge, heavy and awkward from top to bottom, which makes it even more garish, IMHO.

I don't understand why they couldn't have designed the cantilever to be more of a poetic gesture. It's really not the cantilever per se that's the problem, it's how they executed it. Why not show the movement of the building up and east into the new airspace? Why not make the building look alive, organic and graceful instead of harsh, heavy and bolted together? Make the cantilever intentional and beautiful. Use it as a starting point to create an interesting growing and transforming line instead of this jury-rigged-looking awkward solution.

sbarn Feb 7, 2014 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ablerock (Post 6441355)
Agreed. It's kind of bold and timid at the same time, which is not good. It's also physically huge and just looks huge, heavy and awkward from top to bottom, which makes it even more garish, IMHO.

I don't understand why they couldn't have designed the cantilever to be more of a poetic gesture. It's really not the cantilever per se that's the problem, it's how they executed it. Why not show the movement of the building up and east into the new airspace? Why not make the building look alive, organic and graceful instead of harsh, heavy and bolted together? Make the cantilever intentional and beautiful. Use it as a starting point to create an interesting growing and transforming line instead of this jury-rigged-looking awkward solution.

Completely agree. I've been thinking the same thing.

41 East 22nd Street may not be the best example of a cantilever, but it certainly doesn't smack you in the face the way this one does.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153820078/original.jpg

King DenCity Feb 8, 2014 12:40 AM

^I would prefer that over the current design.

NYguy Feb 9, 2014 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6441400)
41 East 22nd Street may not be the best example of a cantilever, but it certainly doesn't smack you in the face the way this one does.


Robert Stern's new east side tower will have a cantilever. The difference is have a portion of the tower cantilever, as opposed to having the entire tower offshoot like a separate building.

Meanwhile, the forces of concern will gather to discuss the "Central Park Supertowers". (Pitchforks not included) Gary Barnett will be on hand.


https://www.eventbrite.com/e/town-ha...ts-10509386859

Town Hall on Central Park Supertowers

https://ebmedia.eventbrite.com/s3-bu...809/1/logo.jpg


Quote:

Community Board Five
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM



Museum of Arts and Design (MAD) Theatre, Lower Level
2 Columbus Circle


How do we protect and preserve our critical public open spaces in light of encroaching real estate development?

What effect will new mega-towers have on transportation, congestion, and other public infrastructure?

What will become of our landmarks and other architectural treasures?

Manhattan Community Board Five invites you to join us for a discussion on the future of our city’s most valuable public resources.


Co-Sponsors:

Borough President
Gale Brewer

State Senators
Brad Hoylman & Liz Krueger

Assemblymember
Richard Gottfried & Linda Rosenthal

City Councilmembers
Dan Garodnick & Corey Johnson

Panelists to Include:

Gary Barnett - President, Extell Development Company


Peg Breen - President, New York Landmarks Conservancy

Michael Kwartler - Architect & Urban Planner

Margaret Newman - Executive Director, Municipal Art Society

Warren St John - Former New York Times reporter and columnist

Moderated by:

Layla Law-Gisiko - Chair, Landmarks Committee, CB5

Design-mind Feb 9, 2014 7:08 PM

I am not sure why this cantilever plays such significants? The cantilever will get lost in the jungle below. The architect should be focusing on the crown, so when people see pictures of NYC they can say "thats the Nordstrom tower"!

NYguy Feb 9, 2014 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Design-mind (Post 6444178)
I am not sure why this cantilever plays such significants? The cantilever will get lost in the jungle below. The architect should be focusing on the crown, so when people see pictures of NYC they can say "thats the Nordstrom tower"!

What, are we only supposed to look at the "tops" of buildings now? What will more than likely get lost from the jungle below is the top. The cantilever plays such significance because it is the major factor in the design.

King DenCity Feb 9, 2014 10:24 PM

Here's how I would put it; the architects can't/shouldn't skimp out on either.

hunser Feb 10, 2014 1:25 PM

Extell, the Art Students League and Markand Thakar

http://1.2.3.12/bmi/1.bp.blogspot.co...loads5-001.jpg

Quote:

[...]
The aptly named Board of Control that currently rules the membership of the League with an iron fist has done nothing to stop him. It has been using its bully pulpit to browbeat members into voting “yes” to Extell’s $31.8 million proposal to cantilever one-third of its 74-story apartment tower over the League building, which is just half a block from Extell's other recently completed skyscraper across from Carnegie Hall.
[...]
The cantilevered condominium apartment tower would sit at the top of the city’s tallest building and be suspended 30 floors above the League. The skyscraper, with or without the cantilever, will have a Nordstrom department store at its base and a hotel. It could rise as high as 1,550 feet, if Extell decides to follow its original proposal. I can envision a scenario where the billionaire foreign investors who buy $90 million condos in this tower might accidentally drop potted plants and champagne bottles onto the glass roof of the League building from their sky lounges 1,400 feet above if the cantilever is built.
The developer has refused to allow the members of the Art Students League to see the final plans for this humongous cantilever before they vote on the future of their beloved institution. But at least one “residential lounge open to the sky” is planned for the 85th floor. And there is talk of an observation tower at the very top.
[...]
The vote is this Wednesday.

NYguy Feb 10, 2014 3:38 PM

^ Hmmm....I still think most will vote to support it because of the money, but there is still dissention in the ranks!


http://aslunite.org/


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154445236/original.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154445238/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154445240/original.jpg

ablerock Feb 10, 2014 6:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6445039)
^ Hmmm....I still think most will vote to support it because of the money, but there is still dissention in the ranks!

They should just counter offer and ask for $45 mil with 100% pre-signed approval ready to go immediately and call it a day.

NYCLuver Feb 10, 2014 11:29 PM

My friend and fellow forum member Danielson27 made these models and I just took the screenshots of them, sorry for them not being clad!!! One57, 432 Park, Torre Verre, 111 W57, 225 W57, 220 CPS are all there.

From Central Park:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psbb5c81ba.jpg

From the West:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps2ef511c1.jpg

From the Empire State Building:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psd17a597f.jpg

From Rockefeller Center:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps8c138b26.jpg

From Rockefeller Center:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps8489a165.jpg

NYguy Feb 11, 2014 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6443941)
Meanwhile, the forces of concern will gather to discuss the "Central Park Supertowers". (Pitchforks not included) Gary Barnett will be on hand.


https://www.eventbrite.com/e/town-ha...ts-10509386859

Town Hall on Central Park Supertowers

https://ebmedia.eventbrite.com/s3-bu...809/1/logo.jpg



A little more on that here...


http://nypost.com/2014/02/10/its-bea...eauty-on-33rd/

Quote:

Now, this should be lively: a “Town Hall” panel discussion on controversial Central Park-area supertowers sponsored by Community Board 5. The Feb. 19 (6 p.m.) session at the Museum of Arts and Design will feature Extell Development chief Gary Barnett (who’s building two of the cloudbusters), New York Landmarks Conservancy president Peg Breen, Municipal Art Society chair Margaret Newman, and skeptical pols Liz Krueger, Richard Gottfried, Linda Rosenthal and Dan Garodnick.

CB 5 landmarks committee chair Layla Law-Gisiko will moderate. Bring your own flak jackets.

It’s free, but you must register here first.
http://www.cb5.org/cb5/

ablerock Feb 11, 2014 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCLuver (Post 6445684)
My friend and fellow forum member Danielson27 made these models and I just took the screenshots of them, sorry for them not being clad!!! One57, 432 Park, Torre Verre, 111 W57, 225 W57, 220 CPS are all there.

From Central Park:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psbb5c81ba.jpg

Awesome, thanks for posting! Really helps communicate their impact.

That cantilever really looks tacky and garish from the Central Park view behind 220, IMHO. (It's so obvious that it's jockeying for position. I know that's the name of the game in crowded NYC, but it's just so tacky to be so hulking and brazen about it.) How can a developer look at that and be proud of their impact on NYC? It has no grace, no personality, no joy, no spirit. All about the Benjamins I guess.

NYguy Feb 12, 2014 6:05 PM

Barnett plays hardball...


http://observer.com/2014/02/extell-g...#axzz2t8FN3irX

Extell Gives Art Students League a Deadline: Approve Cantilever by Wednesday
or Lose $31.8 M. Deal



By Kim Velsey 2/12/14


Quote:

Extell’s controversial plan to cantilever a 1,424-foot skyscraper at 217 West 57th Street over the Art Students League, which won city approval last fall, will be abandoned if the League’s members reject the deal at a vote tonight, according to the developer. Extell has promised to walk away from the deal, which would net the League $31.8 million, and move forward without the cantilever, if the League does not reach an agreement by Wednesday night.

“If the ASL rejects the agreement, the $31 million is gone forever, for no good reason,” said a spokesman for the developer. “Extell is prepared to build without a cantilever.” The site, he added, was huge. Extell would just create a new plan without a cantilever.

Extell’s professed willingness to ditch a central element of the Smith + Gordon Gill-designed tower is somewhat surprising. During the fall, when Extell was seeking approval, it portrayed the cantilever as essential to the project’s moving forward, arguing that the cantilever was necessary to allow for expansive, column-free space needed by Nordstrom, which will occupy the first five floors of the tower. (Though a Nordstrom spokesman later downplayed the retailer’s need for the cantilever, telling The Observer that “ultimately, it was a design issue for the floors above us.”)

Additionally Extell subjected the tower to a somewhat punishing approval process that, but for the cantilever, could of been entirely avoided for the otherwise as-of-right project. (The Art Students League landmark status meant that the project had to come before the community board and subsequently gain approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission.) At the time, the Art Students League voiced enthusiastic support for the project, a support that has not been reflected quite as enthusiastically by the League’s approximately 1,800 voting members, who are now dithering over whether or not to accept the deal.

At least two opposition groups have sprung up—ASL Unite and Don’t Step on Us—and members report that the Board of Control, which approved the conditional contract with Extell, is pushing the project hard, sending out flyers and plastering the school with “Get ready to vote ‘yes’ signage.” But artists, it appears, may be even more difficult to herd than cats.

For its part, ASL Unite, which held a special meeting last night to try to force a delay on the vote, says that they don’t oppose a cantilever outright, but feel that the decision has been rushed and that due diligence has not been done.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.