Excellent news! :tup:

Frigging awesome that this continues to shoot upward.
99 floors? Why not 100 floors?

Cause life isn't fair.
/

Ugh I'm craving some construction photos. Here's to hoping it climbs at the same rate as 432 PA did!

:previous: Given the pace of big money pouring into Manhattan commercial real estate, you can bet that this tower will rise as fast as possible! :tup:

They have a skyline to build!! :hyper:

Some images resized from curbed...


http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/1...les_office.php


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161756398/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161756399/original.jpg
(caption obviously referring to 111 W57th or the Park Lane)



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161756400/original.jpg

:previous: NYguy, for a moment I thought this was another thread.
The Central Park Tower is going to be more impressive for me than the "Freedom" er "Fraud 'em" Tower.

Rebuilding the WTC by not rebuilding the twin towers does not make our country free.

Now, the "Nordstrom Tower" is going to be even more impressive because it does not rely on a silly pole to reach a status.

The mere fact that it's taller than 432 Park in the same area really makes sense as it helps to anchor a balance on the Central Park skyline.

^ I don't want this conversation to get stuck on the WTC.

You mentioned setbacks in the Tower Verre thread, and New York is a setback kinda town. But I look at this model and wonder if it doesn't have too many setbacks. It could go either way, but I haven't seen enough of this tower to decide. I do think it's better without the spire, even though the city would be better served with a spire. I just don't think this tower as is was designed with a spire in mind.

The WTC mention was about the spire and nothing else.
The setbacks are always interesting to see how well it's implemented.

When you look at 432 Park for example, we have an example of a tower with no setbacks whatsoever. Just a straight wall.
Tower Verre is a different type of shape, yet does indeed set itself back as it rises to the top.

Nordstrom has that classic setback design that works:

Again, I don't know because I haven't seen enough of the design to know. I like setbacks that ultimately give a uniformed look to the tower. From the renderings and the model of the tower, I just can't tell. For example, towers like the Empire State or Chrslyer Building have multiple setbacks, but have a unified look that is easy to define. This one has setbacks all over the place. That could work, I just haven't really seen enough to know how it all works.

Columbus Circle station is going to be even more crowded when all of the Billionaire's towers are complete!

Oh wait, that may never happen.
I can somehow see many more supertalls line up in other strategic areas around the park.

But even without a spire, I will always consider the Nordstrom tower as the tallest in the city.

Pic by me

http://standard-discourseorg.netdna-...b1b34f8dce.jpg

This needs the spire.

Does it need it architecturally? That's debatable, but the reality is 1550' is not enough to make a statement given the other 1400'+ towers going up. Without it this tower is nothing more than glorified filler, especially compared to Steinway.

The original 297' iteration of the spire (1478' roof/1775' spire) would be preferable as it is more robust than the multiple setback 265' revised spire (1530' roof/1795' spire).

I'm not sold on "value engineering the spire out". Office tower maybe, but something with the profit margins this tower has, "value engineered" is a pathetic excuse. I think the reality of Steinway will force Barnett to up the ante in the only fashion possible with such a conservative design; keep the spire.

The spire would certainly make it stand out from the others because they don't have one. But placing a spire on top of a building that wasn't designed to have one does more to hurt the skyline than help it. The days of an Empire-State-like dominance over the New York skyline are over. It's the age of the supertall. You will have serveral towers that dominate the mass that is the New York skyline. How much preeminence they take over each other will depend on which angle you are viewing the skyline from.

I may have missed this, but is it 1,550' to the roof or parapet height?

The top is 1550, nothing past that to my knowledge.

"placing a spire on top of a building that wasn't designed to have one
. . does more to hurt the skyline than help it." . . - NYguy . .

Huh? . . It's incomprehensible how this excellent spire could in any way hurt our skyline
. . Quite the contrary ! . . At one point CPT was designed to have a spire . .
and it looked exceptional ! . . Classic . . fitting . .
Better than any other building spire in town . . (other than ESB and Chrysler spires) . .

It's understandable that folks frequently repeat their viewpoint (pro & con) on this issue.
. . because whether or not the spire is there or missing when the tower is complete . .
it is a very significant element affecting the look of CPT and the CPS skyline . .
So it's a fair topic to comment on . . especially when you feel strongly on the subject . .
which I do . . (see Sept 24th posts) . . and I'm not the only one . .

CPT's design needs this device . .
its a distinctively modern asymmetrical perfect-fitting spire . .
With this heroic emblem . . CPT rivals any skyscraper configuration in NYC . .
It thoroughly enhances the building's otherwise inept mediocre architecture . .
. . The perfect deco pinnacle seats seamlessly into the structure . .

Whether or not CPT is the city's tallest doesn't really matter all that much . .
But the spire does step it up all the way . . gracefully completing the looming structure
. . so that the building assumes it's majestic stature . . within NYC tower royalty . .
and as a recognizable beloved icon . .

The amazing 57th St. cluster of tall skinny ones . .
could also use an emphatic celebratory gesture of punctuation . .
a lofty exclamation point . . This is NYC ! Too much ain't enough ! . .

Newest drawings have the tower still at 1550' and no spire still. Will update in the future if anything changes! :tup:

While I agree that the spire was an extremely welcome addition, I still believe the tower is wonderful as is.

And for those curious -- highest residential floor is 1432' (above is mechanical floors and damper), roof height is 1515', and top of the tower is 1550'.

Yeah, it was designed with the spire in mind, or at least during the design process they realized it needed a spire, that a spire could fit and enhance this building and they added it and make some changes to make it better.

This is a building with some asymmetrical setbacks that were very well crowned with that asymetrical placed spire, that happens to have also asymmetrical setbacks on its own, it greatly reinforces like a will to reach the sky, a truly pinnacle, without it is much less special.

Like the spire in 1WTC, in that case a symmetrical placed spire in a symmetrical sloped building, it gives a lot of the identity on that building.

And even in the case of ESB, with the spire (antenna) above its original spire. In that case it wasn't part of the original design, it was made decades later purely for the functional purpose of transmitting radio wawes, but WOW!!, how well it fits, it really needs it, based purely in aesthetics reasons. When you see pictures of the ESB prior to the 1950's when it didn't have an antenna, it is like there's something missing.

I still hope that they put that spire back.