Am I the only one who thinks this tower is far too skinny? I still think 432 Park Ave is a tad skinny, but I've gotten used to it. However this will probably be half the width. Come on, that's ridiculous. :koko: I hope they have some sort of redesign so it fits in better with the skyline at least. There is no use in just building uninspired supertall sticks with no sense of design that are going to look peculiar in a skyline of much thicker buildings. If this gets built as is I'm really going to miss admiring the pretty midtown skyline with its formerly tasteful architecture.
I really don't want New York to turn into another Dubai, where skyscrapers are symbols of a hyper-rich individual who just wants to burn their excess money, with an agglomeration of random oddly designed towers that don't fit well with each other at all. Forgive me for expressing my opinion :shrug: |
For one thing, building really slender--especially in Western metro areas--doesn't necessarily have to be seen as something of a mocking copycat gesture aimed at Dubai or any other (virtually all) Asian cities that do this. They're busy enough engaging in pissing contests...just by doing exactly that.
Here in the West, this latest building trend usually reflects the economic realities involved in it...of course, with more than a fair share of ego and architectural one-upsmanship thrown in. Sure, these "sliverscapers" are going to attract the megarich mike moths to a flame, with the asking prices rising with each floor closer to the sky. But with less square footage comes a smaller price tag...that is, to build it. Nordstrom's tower is immense in both ways--height and width--only because of the corporate entity involved, and with it the money it can shell out to make things like that happen. To be sure also, though, these borderline-superetalls are *planned* and built with more than just a pretty view of Central Park and environs in mind (And PS: What do the folks living and working in Burj Khalifa have to look down at except a glorified public fountain and a Coruscant clone in the middle of the smegging desert???). The occupants themselves of these buildings--i.e. the penthouse dwellers--are the the money machines and revenue generators that will make the Big Apple all the more solvent. It may sound dehumanizing to some degree; but in the end, everyone's a happier person for it. |
I don't get a Dubai vibe from these buildings at all. Not to mention that they will be interspersed with lower buildings, many of which are classic stone and brick structures.
It looks like NYC to me. http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/...pse39c9e22.jpg Diagrams from SSP: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/? The Dubai marina is very impressive, especially for the speed at which it has been built, but the effect will be quite different from Manhattan, even in 2020. http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/...psc90f0a2c.jpg |
I'm looking at 111 right now and thinking that One57 and Tower Verre, both of whom I had seen as kinda yin-yangy sisters, are now the Opera Phantom and Christine getting hitched and announcing the coming birth of one helluva baby.
|
I agree with many of your points, Jay. I just hope that they will redesign the tower to look more aesthetically pleasing and slightly more fitting with the skyline. As of right now, it looks like a tall, thin eyeliner pencil jammed into the ground amongst much thicker and stouter buildings. Also, having the building be continuously set back like that doesn't make sense because it will make the higher apartments' floorspace significantly smaller, when higher floors are usually more expensive.
I used to have the same problem with 432 Park Ave, but I realized that the almond/beige coloring of the building as well as its squareness will fit in well enough with the older stone/concrete buildings even if it's tall. One thing they could do is make the building more symmetrical, rather than having one side flat and the other tapered. Better yet, a Tower Verre stretched this tall would have been really nice. Quote:
And when I'm talking about Dubai, I'm not necessarily saying that New York's new buildings look like Dubai's buildings, but that these developers seem to be rushing to build these random supertalls without giving much thought to their aesthetics or how they will fit into the skyline. In 10 years time we may lose the beautiful and iconic midtown skyline, and it will instead just be a random agglomeration of oddly designed towers with no distinct overall character, like in Dubai. :yuck: |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Totally agree that this couldn't be any MORE NYC! And with the stair-step setbacks is so reminiscent of some of the great residential building lining CPS, CPW and 5th Ave that boarder Central Park.
To have a residential building that tall it has to be thin. Obviously the confines of the lot dictated that. But I think a tall wide residential building don't work either aesthetically or practically for the clientele that they are going after. I would imagine that most of the higher floors will be full floor single units which give much more exclusivity "penthouse" feel even without being the one on the very top. I say, perfect fit for NYC in the 21st century! |
This tower, along with others planned, will go a long way towards bringing the dramatic Manhattan skyline of years long gone. it needs to be tall and thin. One of the most impressive things about Manhattan is it's density, the scope of the towers that line the canyons. Unfortunately, having that many large and boxy towers, especially in that mass only deadens the skyline. It's hard to get a "great" skyline shot. The taller towers being built now will stand out and above the rest.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8SHKndctZW...ewyorkcity.jpg http://www.stardustmoderndesign.com/...rly-1950s.html |
The Future of the Central Park Skyline
It's like begging for something (1000 footers) and finally getting them all at once. This will be central park in 20 years! Are we headed towards a glorious path or dangerous path? https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-d...152/FUTURE.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't quite think that what we're seeing here is to be taken with any seriousness.
I do sympathize with the concern underlying the question being asked, however. That said, I really don't think that NYC's 57th Street corridor is in danger of becomong the Dubai Strip anytime in the future. And yes, the prewar buildings directly along the CP border are protected. But I am glad that something will be done to that ParkLane hotel, which all of a sudden has gone from a dull 70's slab in the midst of timeless architecture to a grimy, *outdated* slab that desperately needs replacement. |
|
^I like it
|
This project has a lot of potential. So far....innovative and exciting. What's not to like?
|
^The fact that it isn't built yet. ;)
Seriously though it's beautiful.:) |
http://architizer.com/blog/sky-high/
Are Billionaires Ruining The New York Skyline? An Exhibition Examines The New Luxury Tower https://architizercdn.s3.amazonaws.c...87892ab9e8.jpg Carl Yost Quote:
|
People were probably worried about the skyline's "integrity" during the time depicted on the postcard below, when a handful of buildings stood out above all others.
http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6e7fa342.jpg That said, the stakes are higher now as far as the length of the shadow cast by all the new 900-foot+ tall buildings NYC will gain by 2020. But the skyline will be even more spectacular. Will there be more widespread height restrictions? Not likely during this next cycle, especially if the midtown east re-zoning is approved. But eventually height restrictions might be imposed. I for one would rather not have supertalls right along Central Park South, or indeed on 5th Avenue or CPW. I think a height restriction of 700 feet or so is reasonable for those park-lining blocks. But with 220 CPS slated for 920', we'll get a chance to see what a really tall building right on the Park will look like. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.