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)

NYguy Jul 12, 2014 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6651709)
What an uninspired design. When I heard they hired Adrian Smith, I expected something dull like Trump Chicago, and that's exactly what we got. He's a hack. I actually prefer his original renderings, which while amateurish in massing, were at least spare and could have been beautiful in it's audacity. Now he has added a haphazard bunch of creases and cantilevers and it looks like an absent-minded doodle. I hate to say it, because this man is changing our skyline, but Barnett is an awful developer. He needs to be banished from New York.



I disagree about that. I'm not a fan of this design, particularly with the cantilever. Keep in mind what Yimby has shown is a "depiction" drawn up by Otie.

The overall scheme of the tower over the store has been somewhat consistent.


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



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154402379/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153243890/original.jpg


In the form Yimby presented, the cantilver is played back a bit towards the top.


http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...3D%20Views.jpg



When the renderings are released, we will get a better sense of the overall design with Nordstrom. I hope the base design is more unified with the tower, and the glass really stands out. At this point, its as much as we can hope for.

But I'm ready for this to get built. And to think, this will be rising along with 111 W. 57th, the Tower Verre, 30 Hudson, even 220 CPS, all towers I am ready to watch rise into the New York sky. Whatever this one lacks, those will certainly make up for.

Blaze23 Jul 12, 2014 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6651709)
What an uninspired design. When I heard they hired Adrian Smith, I expected something dull like Trump Chicago, and that's exactly what we got. He's a hack. I actually prefer his original renderings, which while amateurish in massing, were at least spare and could have been beautiful in it's audacity. Now he has added a haphazard bunch of creases and cantilevers and it looks like an absent-minded doodle. I hate to say it, because this man is changing our skyline, but Barnett is an awful developer. He needs to be banished from New York.

I totally agree with you when it comes to Adrian smith but as far as Barnett, I just think he picked the wrong architect. He's been quite an audacious developer in NYC and I hope there's more to come from him.
As mentioned by some I hope the cladding will make this tower look better, but the design is what it is, still a nice addition to the skyline, tho a disappointing one.

DrNest Jul 12, 2014 4:01 PM

Why the need for the spire? This building will be tall enough without it. And it certainly doesn't add anything aesthetically to the building's overall look. There's enough going on down below without needing a pencil stuck in the top.

Perklol Jul 12, 2014 4:28 PM

delete

animatedmartian Jul 12, 2014 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 6651870)
Why the need for the spire? This building will be tall enough without it. And it certainly doesn't add anything aesthetically to the building's overall look. There's enough going on down below without needing a pencil stuck in the top.

It looks more like an antenna.

JayPro Jul 12, 2014 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 6651870)
Why the need for the spire? This building will be tall enough without it. And it certainly doesn't add anything aesthetically to the building's overall look. There's enough going on down below without needing a pencil stuck in the top.

:facepalm: Ah well...It's worth a try anyway.

A *Siamese spire* doesn't add anything? IIRC No other supertall in this country that's been built or proposed within the past decade has this kind of element. It's a novelty to me, and speaking for myself, I really like this departure from the norm in pinnacle design.

And not to personalize this in a negative way; but re this "tall enough" straw man talking point: Why does there seem to exist this latent envy-based mindset that NYC can't build above that certain elusive supertall benchmark height, but if another city of relatively equal prominence could do the same, it would and should...even if for various reasons it can't?

Don't get me wrong...I like to see cities like Chicago and Toronto submit genuine projects and have their merits duly debated (PS: I'd also like to see cities like Dallas, Houston, LA, Philly, Miami etc do a lot more of the same). But when politics, zoning issues, NIMBY/civic wet-blanketism and FAA red tape get in the way, it seems that all the righteous (my emphasis) indignation engendered thereby gets projected towards The Apple.

IMO it's as if to suggest that "If we can't build above a certain height, why should NYC?"

I'm at a loss as to why that seems the case to me.

Plokoon11 Jul 12, 2014 5:51 PM

^ Well Philly is already pushing into their first supertall, same with SF. LA is being LA. But I do agree.

DrNest Jul 12, 2014 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6651932)
:facepalm: Ah well...It's worth a try anyway.

A *Siamese spire* doesn't add anything? IIRC No other supertall in this country that's been built or proposed within the past decade has this kind of element. It's a novelty to me, and speaking for myself, I really like this departure from the norm in pinnacle design.

And not to personalize this in a negative way; but re this "tall enough" straw man talking point: Why does there seem to exist this latent envy-based mindset that NYC can't build above that certain elusive supertall benchmark height, but if another city of relatively equal prominence could do the same, it would and should...even if for various reasons it can't?

Don't get me wrong...I like to see cities like Chicago and Toronto submit genuine projects and have their merits duly debated (PS: I'd also like to see cities like Dallas, Houston, LA, Philly, Miami etc do a lot more of the same). But when politics, zoning issues, NIMBY/civic wet-blanketism and FAA red tape get in the way, it seems that all the righteous (my emphasis) indignation engendered thereby gets projected towards The Apple.

IMO it's as if to suggest that "If we can't build above a certain height, why should NYC?"

I'm at a loss as to why that seems the case to me.

I think you've largely misinterpreted my post. If you were to look up previous posts in other threads of mine, you'll see a common theme is that I am not a fan of spires, but I do like height. If they want this tower to be 1775 ft, then build floors to that height, not build to around 1400' and stick a 350'-ish stick on top.

In my opinion almost all spires are ugly. Yes there are obvious exceptions, but this reminds me of the spire on BoA tower, which, in my opinion, completely ruins the aesthetics of what otherwise would be a great looking tower.

Coming from Toronto, I have no envy of what is being proposed height-wise in NYC, and don't subscribe to the indignation you suggest. Toronto's councillor's seem to have a rule that a building can only be approved if 20% of the proposed height is reduced. That I find frustrating, but am seeing with recent new builds and proposals, that the height limit is being pushed higher and higher. And don't doubt that it won't be too long before there is a serious proposal for a tower in the 1400-1700' range in Toronto.

Anyways, this is digressing for the subject of the thread, and I don't wish to continue off-topic. We're all entitled to our opinions and tastes, mine appear to be different to yours.

gramsjdg Jul 12, 2014 6:28 PM

Its possible that the renders and info from Yimby were leaked on purpose by Related so that Barnett could get a feel for reaction to the redesign. It is interesting that there has been no comment from Related or Gary Barnett since the leaked info became public. Maybe he wants some room to tweak the design further based on public reaction... i.e. roof height and spire...

babybackribs2314 Jul 12, 2014 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6651989)
Its possible that the renders and info from Yimby were leaked on purpose by Related so that Barnett could get a feel for reaction to the redesign. It is interesting that there has been no comment from Related or Gary Barnett since the leaked info became public. Maybe he wants some room to tweak the design further based on public reaction... i.e. roof height and spire...

WTF are you talking about?

vandelay Jul 12, 2014 7:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6651709)
What an uninspired design. When I heard they hired Adrian Smith, I expected something dull like Trump Chicago, and that's exactly what we got. He's a hack. Now he has added a haphazard bunch of creases and cantilevers and it looks like an absent-minded doodle. Barnett is an awful developer. He needs to be banished from New York.

Well said. The Central Park South skyline view is one of the most important man made viewsheds in the world, culturally and economically. Architects and developers are contributing to a collaborative work of public art, and need to step up their game. Both of the designs we've seen are mediocre at best.

ILNY Jul 12, 2014 9:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 6651870)
Why the need for the spire? This building will be tall enough without it. And it certainly doesn't add anything aesthetically to the building's overall look. There's enough going on down below without needing a pencil stuck in the top.

If the official height of the skyscraper was calculated to the roof or the highest occupied floor there would be no need for many unnecessary spires like 1WTC (408ft) or Burj Khalifa (700ft). Burj's spire would make for good size skyscraper by itself!


Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6651709)
What an uninspired design. I hate to say it, because this man is changing our skyline, but Barnett is an awful developer. He needs to be banished from New York.

Well, if you go by his past records, Barnett has already build a supertall - One57 which is a great design. You are forming your opinion based on some massing models and few renders that are not even official and as YIMBY stated are not final. Have some patience.

If the renders were final and released against Barnett's directions, the person who leaked them would be aware that he needs to spend this nice weekend on updating his resume.

hunser Jul 12, 2014 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6652142)
If the official height of the skyscraper was calculated to the roof or the highest occupied floor there would be no need for many unnecessary spires like 1WTC (408ft) or Burj Khalifa (700ft). Burj's spire would make for good size skyscraper by itself!


That's nothing, Kingdom Tower in Jeddah will set a new record where the top 37% is unhabitable. So 1007m*0.37=372.6m, meaning that the spire itself will be a supertall lol.

sparkling Jul 12, 2014 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6651989)
Its possible that the renders and info from Yimby were leaked on purpose by Related so that Barnett could get a feel for reaction to the redesign. It is interesting that there has been no comment from Related or Gary Barnett since the leaked info became public. Maybe he wants some room to tweak the design further based on public reaction... i.e. roof height and spire...

I think you meant 'Extell' not 'Related'

NYguy Jul 12, 2014 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6651811)
As mentioned by some I hope the cladding will make this tower look better, but the design is what it is, still a nice addition to the skyline, tho a disappointing one.

Yeah, the tower is likely much nicer when fully revealed, and particularly for the residences within. Barnett knows what he's doing as far as that goes.



Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 6651870)
Why the need for the spire? This building will be tall enough without it.

If you're asking, why does any building need a spire? Let's remove all spires from all buildigns and never build another. That'll get us nowhere.

Spires are here, and they're here to stay. And they count in the height, no use discussing it here. Most of the world's tallest buildings now include a spire of some sort. And since we are specifically talking about a tower that is going up in New York, the classic skyline of spires, I would say the tallest towers in Manhattan need a spire.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6651932)
Don't get me wrong...I like to see cities like Chicago and Toronto submit genuine projects and have their merits duly debated (PS: I'd also like to see cities like Dallas, Houston, LA, Philly, Miami etc do a lot more of the same).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 6651954)
Coming from Toronto, I have no envy of what is being proposed height-wise in NYC, and don't subscribe to the indignation you suggest.

Anyways, this is digressing for the subject of the thread, and I don't wish to continue off-topic. We're all entitled to our opinions and tastes, mine appear to be different to yours.

And that's what it comes down to. Now, let's leave all of these other cities out of the discussion.

I was thinking earlier that if this building does indeed reach 1,775 ft, there would be the "official" difference in height with the Freedom Tower of 1 ft. Likewise, if 111 W. 57 rises to a reported height of 1,397 ft, it would be 1 ft higher than 432 Park Avenue. There could be some flux with all of those numbers, so we'll just have to wait and see.

DrNest Jul 13, 2014 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6652224)
If you're asking, why does any building need a spire? Let's remove all spires from all buildigns and never build another. That'll get us nowhere.

Spires are here, and they're here to stay. And they count in the height, no use discussing it here. Most of the world's tallest buildings now include a spire of some sort. And since we are specifically talking about a tower that is going up in New York, the classic skyline of spires, I would say the tallest towers in Manhattan need a spire.

No, I'm not asking why any building needs a spire. I'm specifically mentioning it for this building. I'm not interested in discussing whether a spire counts towards the height, that's been discussed ad nauseam on numerous other threads. Like I said, I just don't like the look of the proposed spire on this tower, and in my opinion, I don't think it needs one.

supertallchaser Jul 13, 2014 1:37 AM

i hate when people criticize a engineering marvel like this,think,a 1480ft building with a cantilever,cmon i know it looks bad but look at some design features it has ,it impressive to say the least.

Zapatan Jul 13, 2014 3:14 AM

I agree, it's impressive in a lot of ways.

Crawford Jul 13, 2014 5:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6651989)
Its possible that the renders and info from Yimby were leaked on purpose by Related so that Barnett could get a feel for reaction to the redesign. It is interesting that there has been no comment from Related or Gary Barnett since the leaked info became public. Maybe he wants some room to tweak the design further based on public reaction... i.e. roof height and spire...

Is it me, or are about 90% of the posts in this thread absolute rubbish?

Related has nothing to do with this project, no one in Gary Barnett's office has heard of SSP or NY YIMBY or the .001% of people who are skyscraper geeks, and, no there isn't some grand conspiracy to have skyscraper geeks do a covert "design by committee".

Sometimes I wonder if SSP posters are just engaging in farce or something. Skyscraper height is not a big thing outside of the extremely narrow world of skyscraper geek-dom. I guarantee the developers have spent 1000x more effort on dealing with things like Nordstrom's interior layout, than relatively unimportant things like the building height.

NYguy Jul 13, 2014 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest (Post 6652252)
No, I'm not asking why any building needs a spire. I'm specifically mentioning it for this building.

I know that's what you're asking. And my response is why not ask that of any tower with a spire. It's the design.


Quote:

I'm not interested in discussing whether a spire counts towards the height, that's been discussed ad nauseam on numerous other threads.
Good. Then don't.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:08 AM.

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