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)

hunser Feb 27, 2014 1:31 PM

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/60...a91f1d1803.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/60...3552827bf7.jpg

miesian Feb 27, 2014 2:03 PM

:hmmm::facepalm:

NYguy Feb 27, 2014 2:09 PM

Looks closer to the earlier version model than the early One57 model.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6309616)
I spoke to a knowledgeable architect while touring ASGG's office today. He is working on the project and offered some valuable insight. The developer is pretty dead set on the cantilever, but still very interested in additional height, referencing the value of CP views. They're definitely taking into consideration 220 CPS, judging by the massing model of the surrounding area. Unfortunately, you'll see from the actual 225 models that they're pretty intent on a flat roof. No intricate crown or spire, but perhaps a crowned mechanical level, which could look alright lit up at night. At best, this building will reflect 432 Park Ave, but as a more contemporary version of the boxy design. Take all this for what it's worth. Please enjoy the pics-


The grey model is in two pieces, but seems to be the most detailed. You can see the cantilever, balconies throughout, a high-level setback and the open-air mechanical levels on top.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-J...549-no/13+-+11



in the case of both towers, would have made for a nicer peak on the skyline.


http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/60...3552827bf7.jpg__https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-J...549-no/13+-+11



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152984358/original.jpg


One57
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154478463/original.jpg


One57
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154478465/original.jpg

ILNY Feb 27, 2014 2:50 PM

It does not make sense that Gary would pay $40 million for cantilever just to abandon it.

NYguy Feb 27, 2014 3:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6471151)
It does not make sense that Gary would pay $40 million for cantilever just to abandon it.

He won't. Keep in mind that the video aired yesterday, but it wasn't filmed yesterday.

sbarn Feb 27, 2014 5:40 PM

Wow that model is amazing. I am actively trying to forget I saw it so my expectations aren't too high when the final / cantilever design is released.

Zapatan Feb 27, 2014 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6471541)
Wow that model is amazing. I am actively trying to forget I saw it so my expectations aren't too high when the final / cantilever design is released.

Probably a good idea... my expectations aren't super high for this one... what's too good to be true often is :frog:

JayPro Feb 27, 2014 8:56 PM

You all know my take on the model of this tower as presented in the meeting, which only dealt with the cantilever; but I would make these suggestions.
Cantilevers, I would think, don't necessarily have to be these 3-D Tetrissy overhangs. Why can't on be "hollowed out", as if with a scooper to a carton of ice cream? Or angled inward?
This *most* intriguing new large model I'm seeing here seems to take the cantilever in at least one of these two directions, adding some kind of undulating facade treatment along the way.

All that said, I somehow cannot believe that Smith/Gill and Extell will disappoint or drop the ball, *especially* now, given the revelations of 220 CPS and 111 W 57th, which in every conceivable respect has drawn a proverbial line in the sand and triple-dirty-water-dog-dared every developer supposedly worth his/her salt to do better.
I've seen what S/G can do conceptually and what Extell can pull of just by virtue of being Extell. They damned well better run with this ball and score big.

vandelay Feb 27, 2014 10:10 PM

All you have to do is look at Gary Barnett's necktie in that documentary, and you'll understand why Extell projects can be so ugly.

NYguy Feb 27, 2014 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6471961)
All that said, I somehow cannot believe that Smith/Gill and Extell will disappoint or drop the ball, *especially* now, given the revelations of 220 CPS and 111 W 57th, which in every conceivable respect has drawn a proverbial line in the sand and triple-dirty-water-dog-dared every developer supposedly worth his/her salt to do better.
I've seen what S/G can do conceptually and what Extell can pull of just by virtue of being Extell. They damned well better run with this ball and score big.

Well, they will be competing in the same market (worldwide), so it would make sense they would like to make a splash with this one. The renderings should knock you out with drop dead sexiness. I don't know if that can happen with the current form, and Barnett is at least aware of what sells. Let's get some official renderings out already.

gramsjdg Feb 27, 2014 11:24 PM

The large model looks fantastic; very 70's in a good way.

I have to believe that Barnett was completely aware of what would be shown on the program last night, and would not have wanted the 1550 ft angular model shown so prominently if he was going to go with a design that's as completely different as the 1435' cantilever massing renders show.

Busy Bee Feb 27, 2014 11:37 PM

^thats exactly what I was thinking. And it didn't just show them at the 36 minute mark, they were shown earlier as well, as if Gary Barnett was making a point of highlighting them.

nomad11 Feb 28, 2014 7:16 AM

After seeing that show, they definitely put lots of effort into making One57 aesthetically superior (both on the inside and out). Taking that into account, I can't imagine they'd drop the ball on this tower. The stakes are much higher (increased competition from Steinway, 432 Park, possibly more...not to mention the Nordstrom component). At the very least, the facade should be impressive, but I suspect the entire design will be an improvement compared to what we've seen so far.

NYguy Feb 28, 2014 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6472288)
The large model looks fantastic; very 70's in a good way.

I have to believe that Barnett was completely aware of what would be shown on the program last night, and would not have wanted the 1550 ft angular model shown so prominently if he was going to go with a design that's as completely different as the 1435' cantilever massing renders show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6472316)
^thats exactly what I was thinking. And it didn't just show them at the 36 minute mark, they were shown earlier as well, as if Gary Barnett was making a point of highlighting them.


Gary Barnett apparently very much intended to go with a different design (see the filing documents) at one point. As I said before, keep in mind that the show was filmed at an earlier point in this process. Barnett has paid for the cantilever and will use it. It will take a stroke of luck and some legal maneuvering (ASL students) to keep him from doing so.

Crawford Feb 28, 2014 2:53 PM

I am confident Extell will use some sort of cantilever, as he just paid for the rights.

At the same time, I'm also confident that the final design will be different than the most recent renderings. Extell projects are usually high quality design, he has a first-class architect, and the competition will be spectacular, so they'll come up with something at least pretty good.

NYguy Feb 28, 2014 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6473049)
I am confident Extell will use some sort of cantilever, as he just paid for the rights.

At the same time, I'm also confident that the final design will be different than the most recent renderings.

It will most certainly be different - he just got an extra 6,000 sf to work with. At the very least, expect a slight bump in height.



http://observer.com/2014/02/of-golde...eaden-critics/

Of Golden Geese and Leaden Critics
Demonizing the wealthy might feel good, but it hurts New York



By Gary Barnett
2/28/14


Quote:

New York City has worked hard to present an appealing and welcoming image to the rest of the world, attracting a record number of visitors who spend money here and invest in city real estate. They create thousands of jobs and over $50 billion in economic activity. Tourism, hotels and construction are some of the largest economic and tax generators for our city.

But some critics question the civic value of constructing super-luxury buildings, especially tall ones with views of Central Park, such as those that my company is building on Manhattan’s West 57th Street. Some suggest that we saddle purchasers of such apartments with extra taxation, even though they make few demands on the public services their taxes help underwrite.

Others intentionally ignore the economic benefits and jobs that development provides, seeking to add new layers of regulation in order to stop large-scale construction that provide high-quality jobs both during the building phase and after.

A New York Times business columnist recently wrote that “ultra-wealthy nonresidents who own property in New York City certainly make a ripe target for potential revenue.” A Times architecture critic, stepping far beyond his area of expertise, suggested “the mayor could lobby to raise taxes on those out of town plutocrats buying zillion dollar aeries.”

Do we want to send a message to wealthy pied-a-terre buyers, both American and international, that they are a ripe target and New Yorkers are going to charge them more for the privilege of investing in our city? If we subject foreigners to added taxation for owning a residence in New York City, it’s just common sense that many fewer will buy. If we drive away a pool of ready buyers at luxury prices, some of these buildings will not get built at all.

We need a balanced approach if we don’t want to injure—or kill—the goose that lays the golden egg.

To assemble a large site along with unused air rights, enabling a large building, takes many years and very substantial sums of risk capital. It took Extell 10 years to assemble the site for One57-a mixed-use building with a Park Hyatt hotel at its base—and eight years for the Nordstrom tower a block to the west. Tall buildings cost more to build and take longer, exposing the projects to significant risk, such as the market crash of 2008.

New construction is the lifeblood of major cities, providing dynamic renewal and serving as a major economic engine and revenue generator for city and state coffers. Over the next 20 years, One57 will generate over $1 billion in real estate, sales, hotel occupancy and other taxes, according to planning documents we prepared for city review. The Nordstrom tower, which will house the first new department store to open in Manhattan in over 40 years, will contribute more than $2 billion in tax revenue.

Critics have a right not to like the design of One57, a sinuous sculpture of cascading ribbons of glass on its south facade and a Klimt-like pixilation of glass that changes color and transparency as the sun progresses on its east and west facades. They can inveigh against the Nordstrom building, even though most criticism is based on premature and incomplete drawings and faulty information.

But they cross the line with throwaway advice to Art Students League members to vote against their future and turn down the tens of millions of dollars my company has offered for the right to build a cantilever on the Nordstrom tower that would begin more than 200 feet above the roof of the League building. That plan was approved by the city’s Landmarks and Preservation Commission, and welcomed by the art league’s leaders. The same Times architectural critic, however, expressed the hope that “cranky artists might still succeed where Landmarks failed, and shelve the cantilever. Here’s hoping they do.”

What possible purpose, other than spite, would this advice serve? The building will still be built, just as tall, but it would hurt Nordstrom and Extell needlessly, affecting the expanded floor plate essential for modern department stores and providing more attractive floor plans for the apartments above.

More importantly, it would hurt the Art Students League, an institution that for over 100 years has nurtured American artists. The League plans to invest the proceeds of Extell’s payment for the cantilever permission to renovate and expand its landmarked building, and add programs and scholarships to serve its members. Who will replace that money? Advising the Art Students League to reject a plan that benefits them is like the armchair general, safe behind the lines, declaring his army will fight to the last man.

A few blocks from my Queens home live some of the best structural concrete workers in the world. They earn an average union wage over $100,000 a year. The thousands of person-years of union jobs generated by construction of these buildings, as well as the hundreds of permanent jobs at the Park Hyatt and Nordstrom, provide meaningful employment to middle class New Yorkers. Jeopardizing the ability to build buildings like these also jeopardizes their livelihood.

Disregarding the jobs and other benefits that development brings our city is a brand of elitism that may be fine in the rarefied circles of architectural critics, but has no place in the multidimensional world of public and social policy.

Last week, the members of the Art Student League voted to approve the cantilever transaction, by a vote of over 1,300 to 200. Which just goes to show that the artists may be cranky- but they are not stupid.

Gary Barnett is the President and founder of Extell Development Company

hunser Feb 28, 2014 11:14 PM

Quote:

They can inveigh against the Nordstrom building, even though most criticism is based on premature and incomplete drawings and faulty information.
Yeah well, whose fault is that Gary? This project has been a PR desaster from the beginning! :mad:

Zapatan Feb 28, 2014 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6473931)
Yeah well, whose fault is that Gary? This project has been a PR desaster from the beginning! :mad:

Very true, didn't really think that one through did he? :koko:

gramsjdg Feb 28, 2014 11:41 PM

That's the first time I've heard Barnett admit to criticisms about the Nordstrom tower design, but he is tip-toeing around it and not directly addressing the concerns about the banality of the current "design" or "massing" or the significant drop in height.:gaah:

NYguy Mar 1, 2014 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6473976)
That's the first time I've heard Barnett admit to criticisms about the Nordstrom tower design, but he is tip-toeing around it and not directly addressing the concerns about the banality of the current "design" or "massing" or the significant drop in height.:gaah:

And he still hasn't released any renderings to answer that criticism. I know these buildings are always in a state of fine tuning. But come on already, it's one of the tallest buildings planned for the city. The "stealth mode" approach isn't working anymore. It's time to be judged...:farmer:


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:36 PM.

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