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)

Dale Dec 17, 2012 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5941516)
THe NYC mayor doesn't have direct control over the city's zoning code.

In any case, under Bloomberg, there have been far more downzonings in NYC than upzonings.

I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that his push for Midtown rezoning was an attempt by Bloomberg to cement a legacy as a 'skyscraper mayor.'

Crawford Dec 17, 2012 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale (Post 5941526)
I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that his push for Midtown rezoning was an attempt by Bloomberg to cement a legacy as a 'skyscraper mayor.'

A mayoral administration has indirect sway over zoning in terms of appointments to the city planning commission. So in that sense, you're right that the mayor has significant influence. And certainly the Midtown East rezoning has strong support from City Hall.

But I don't think the rezoning has anything to do with skyscrapers. It's more concened with adding office space, because the city has huge complaints from companies that they can't find newer space in that district. Skyscrapers are the natural result, rather than the aim, of the rezoning.

And I would never call Bloomberg a "skyscraper mayor". There have been many skyscrapers proposed during his terms, but few had anything to do with his mayorality (except in the indirect sense; in that he has generally been a very good mayor and so there's a good business climate).

I don't think Bloomberg (or really any NYC mayor) spends too much time thinking about skyscrapers (either pro or con). Remember that we at SSP have different interests than 99% of the people out there.

Dale Dec 17, 2012 9:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5941538)
A mayoral administration has indirect sway over zoning in terms of appointments to the city planning commission. So in that sense, you're right that the mayor has significant influence. And certainly the Midtown East rezoning has strong support from City Hall.

But I don't think the rezoning has anything to do with skyscrapers. It's more concened with adding office space, because the city has huge complaints from companies that they can't find newer space in that district. Skyscrapers are the natural result, rather than the aim, of the rezoning.

And I would never call Bloomberg a "skyscraper mayor". There have been many skyscrapers proposed during his terms, but few had anything to do with his mayorality (except in the indirect sense; in that he has generally been a very good mayor and so there's a good business climate).

I don't think Bloomberg (or really any NYC mayor) spends too much time thinking about skyscrapers (either pro or con). Remember that we at SSP have different interests than 99% of the people out there.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. And I'm actually relieved to learn that at least a mayor poses little threat to highrise development.

NYguy Dec 17, 2012 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5941516)
In any case, under Bloomberg, there have been far more downzonings in NYC than upzonings.

That has been for the most part in neighborhoods, and in some cases, like Williamsburg, you get both up and downzoning. But in the city's business districts, the push has been to allow for larger development.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale (Post 5941526)
I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that his push for Midtown rezoning was an attempt by Bloomberg to cement a legacy as a 'skyscraper mayor.'

The Midtown rezoning is Bloomberg;s push to keep the city's top business district - the Grand Central area - relevant to companies looking for modern office space. That's not only to remain competitive to other areas in and around the city (like Hudson Yards), but with cities around the world that have been building more modern office space at a pace ahead of New York's. The district around Grand Central was downzoned back in the 60's, making any prospect of building modern office space almost nonexistent.

As far as this tower goes, it can be built as high as the developer can reasonably build, meaning there is a limit to how many units they can squeeze out of the floor space. If designed within zoning guidelines like One57, it will need no approvals. If designed outside of zoning, like 15 Penn and the Tower Verre, special permits would be needed. However, I doubt Barnett would go that route because it is a 6 month process and nothing is guaranteed. Look for a building that fits within the zoning, but built as high as possible, with maybe some flourish at the top (not a spire).

Extell also has hands in some of the rezoning in the GC district...

Quote:

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/12/...x-deal-making/

One example includes Extell Development, which purchased a portfolio of parking garages last year including 138 East 50th Street, between Lexington and Third avenues. The city expects the site will be developed with a hotel that could be as large as 924,893 square feet. But first Extell would have to strike deals with hotel giant Starwood Capital Group, as well as the smaller players Ramosar Realty, San Carlos Building Corp., and Samson Management.

Onn Dec 17, 2012 11:37 PM

Adrian Smith isn't a bad choice to design! This probably means the tower will be more in line with Nordstrom's vision than Barnett's though. SOM is known for their more corporate/professional looking designs, but with all of the bells and whistles. Of course this is Adrian Smith, not the entire SOM team. The only project we know he is doing so far is the Jeddah Tower. Might be a good place to look for clues about what is to come.

http://www.constructionweekonline.co...mtowerview.jpg
http://www.constructionweekonline.co...mtowerview.jpg

Dale Dec 17, 2012 11:55 PM

Can't speak for New Yorkers, but I'm personally okay with 3,000'.

Onn Dec 18, 2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale (Post 5941747)
Can't speak for New Yorkers, but I'm personally okay with 3,000'.

2,000ft would even be okay. New York hasn't had anything that's really broken the sound barrier yet.

babybackribs2314 Dec 18, 2012 12:07 AM

3000' would ruin the skyline.

2000' would be OK as long as it's built after 2020 or so.

Come 2020, NYC will have at least a dozen (probably 20 or so) towers surpassing 1000 feet, with 5+ towers exceeding 1,300'. I think it would be nice to get ~5 other towers in the 1500' range before NYC sees anything up to 2,000 feet.

Even in Shanghai, their 2,100 foot tall tower is going to look bizarre/out of place (though the design is amazing). I think the only two locations where a 2,000' tower would be aesthetically OK are the HY or Midtown East.

I think the slow pace of NYC's rise in terms of highest roof height is actually a good thing and indicates things are being built out of demand rather than for show... 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 3 WTC, 15 Penn, and the HY North Tower are all around the same height, and I'm sure some of the other Hudson Yards towers will be similar...

ThatOneGuy Dec 18, 2012 1:27 AM

Who the hell wants a 3000 foot tower besides Arab billionaires with nothing better to do?
NYC needs quality buildings, not overstretched attention-seekers.

NYC GUY Dec 18, 2012 1:42 AM

So when the ESB was built it stood out.

scalziand Dec 18, 2012 2:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5941728)
Adrian Smith isn't a bad choice to design! This probably means the tower will be more in line with Nordstrom's vision than Barnett's though. SOM is known for their more corporate/professional looking designs, but with all of the bells and whistles. Of course this is Adrian Smith, not the entire SOM team. The only project we know he is doing so far is the Jeddah Tower. Might be a good place to look for clues about what is to come.

http://www.constructionweekonline.co...mtowerview.jpg
http://www.constructionweekonline.co...mtowerview.jpg

Other recent designs by Adrian Smith:

Jin Mao tower (Shanghai) 1999
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_von_oben.jpg

Pearl Tower (Guangzhou) 2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rTower_Jan.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pe...rTower_Jan.jpg

Zifeng Tower (Nanjing) 2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...feng_Tower.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Na...feng_Tower.jpg

Chicago Trump 2009
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2C_Chicago.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...r,_Chicago.jpg

Jupiter Mills and Elphinstone Mills Towers (Mumbai) U/C
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/2307/jms01yo7.jpg

Wuhan Greenland Center (Wuhan) U/C 2016
http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/clas...%29AS%26GG.jpg
http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buil...ilding_id=9671

Dragon Towers, Dream Hub (Seoul)
http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-conte...-2-537x391.jpg
http://inhabitat.com/adrian-smith-go...eathable-skin/

An unbuilt complex in Dubai:
http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2...all-towers.jpg

Sears Tower Hotel
http://archpaper.com/uploads/image/Tower-Hotel.jpg
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=3943




Adrian Smith rarely designs ugly towers, so it's a pretty sure thing we're in for a treat.

aquablue Dec 18, 2012 3:23 AM

It appears he has a propensity towards futuristic towers with an industrial edge and I like that. I just hope this isn't similar to the Trump Chicago which could happen. I'm not a fan of that tower. I'd prefer a tower without such obvious setbacks like the Trump and instead a slanting tower would be preferable.

BraveNewWorld Dec 18, 2012 3:53 AM

Quote:

the deisnger is best known for the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world’s tallest tower that reaches some 2,717 feet, more than a mile high

Embarrassing...

On the bright side, he is only off about 2500 ft! :haha:

Onn Dec 18, 2012 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue
It appears he has a propensity towards futuristic towers with an industrial edge and I like that. I just hope this isn't similar to the Trump Chicago which could happen. I'm not a fan of that tower. I'd prefer a tower without such obvious setbacks like the Trump and instead a slanting tower would be preferable. What I do know is that we won't be getting any kind of HdeM artsy type twisting tower, etc..

Part of the reason for Trump Tower's angled setbacks was becuase of the strange shaped lot it was on. I think it's a great tower regardless, probably the best built in the US since the turn of the century (along with the Comcast Center). Trump Tower was also supposed to be a lot taller than it was, shortened because of 9/11.

Looking at the rest of his work, whatever Smith comes up with I'm sure it will be mind blowing. SOM may not have a track record as a creative genius, but they still have created many of the most iconic towers of all time. Creativity can sometimes go out of style quickly, a good design never does.

BraveNewWorld Dec 18, 2012 4:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5942062)
Part of the reason for Trump Tower's angled setbacks was becuase of the strange shaped lot it was on. I think it's a great tower regardless, probably the best built in the US since the turn of the century (along with the Comcast Center). Trump Tower was also supposed to be a lot taller than it was, shortened because of 9/11.

Looking at the rest of his work, whatever Smith comes up with I'm sure it will be mind blowing. SOM may not have a track record as a creative genius, but they still have created many of the most iconic towers of all time. Creativity can sometimes go out of style quickly, a good design never does.

Well said, you are also correct about Trump being shortened, it was originally going to be 2000m+

I also agree that Trump is the best tower built this century.

pico44 Dec 18, 2012 4:43 AM

Ha. Trump is not good. If we get something as bad as Trump Chicago here, that would a massive disappointment.

Although I am pleasantly surprised by some of those other proposals so fingers crossed.

sw5710 Dec 18, 2012 5:57 AM

Im just waiting for the design to come out. 1,550' + :)

khaizer007 Dec 18, 2012 6:09 AM

^^^ Yea, to each their own but there's nothing aesthetically pleasing about that Trump Tower. As far as best designed tower since the turn of the century in the US i'd take the Hearst tower or even NY by Ghery over that. As far as this tower, although I would've preferred Herzog & De Meuron to design it, I think Adrian Smith seems to be pretty good at designed really tall towers, but I hope for something more cutting edge considering the location of the building and how much it needs to stand out from the competition besides its height.

Onn Dec 18, 2012 6:17 AM

Trump Tower is the most "aesthetically pleasing" tower in Chicago. Hearst is nice but there's nothing that remarkable about it, Ghery's looks like a huge piece of twisted metal. I had hopes for the design but have come away underwhelmed. But to each his own...

NYC2ATX Dec 18, 2012 10:08 AM

I can't complain about the selection of Smith. We want our skyline to continue to stand up to the Asian Tigers, and it's clear by his catalog of projects that Adrian Smith knows how to design supertall towers that contemporary cities want in their skylines. Also, we can't really fret about not getting a Herzog & de Meuron skyscraper, because we're already getting a showstopper from them downtown at 56 Leonard Street...otherwise known as one of my favorite towers ever proposed in New York. :tup:


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:18 PM.

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