It looks decent but it is unacceptable at such heights that there would be a simple design. But then, how else would they design this tower with their restrictions? I am assuming this isn't a surprise to certain folks.

I'm not ready to accept this yet. I'm praying to the Skyscraper Gods for something more spectacular! :worship:

The biggest problem is that the facade looks like its made entirely of the same monochrome glass. A single glass tube is not going to look good on the skyline. They need jazz it up a bit, sort of like One57, but not exactly like One57 of course. Add some sort of variety. At least 432 Park Avenue, even though its also a tall and thin tube, has masonry mixed with glass windows and depressions at intervals to split it up the structure.

After the CB5 meeting not at all...when broken down im ok with the outcome. its like our sears tower. And by 2020 will probably be lost in a forest of cranes and towers of equal or greater size. We got a bunch of huge proposals this year and last, so one isnt breathtaking...big deal they cant all be. one day NYC will do what it does best and lose this one in its density...

New York YIMBY:

Construction Update: 217 West 57th Street
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON NOVEMBER 8TH 2013 AT 7:30 AM

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...11/217w571.jpg
Photo By: "YIMBY reader Andrew"

There are far too many towers with examples of how to do just that.


We all should be. But maybe the skyscraper gods have something better in store for us. We know there are other developments afoot. Who knows what's coming down the pipeline. Maybe this is the "sacrifice" we have to make for all the goodies we're getting.

This tower for me was at one point the most exciting development, at least as far as height goes. Seeing how this thing could potentially look has thrown a bucket of cold water on that. I honestly wouldn't care if this didn't get built at all.

Meanwhile, here's a look at the history of that stretch of 57th...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/re...lock.html?_r=0


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpg

The low-rise Art Students League, center, is to have a skyscraper on its far side and cantilevered over its roof. On its near side is the Osborne apartment house.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ets2-popup.jpg

In 1919 the other side of the mixed-use block was home to, from left: the Rodin Studios apartment house, at Seventh Avenue; the Consolidated Gas offices; the American Society of Civil Engineers; and General Motors.

^ This is a lesson of lost opportunity.

Are you referring to Tower Verre?

Ya given the anchor tenants demands and developer, what towers are you referring to?

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3722/1...51277f17_b.jpg



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2881/1...c3c80fc8_b.jpg



No excavation yet.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3818/1...419f8232_b.jpg




Piano building is gone.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3700/1...c5aae8ff_b.jpg

What are you guys talking about? As skyscraper fans, surely you know more than enough examples on your own. All you have to do is look down the street to another skyscraper that crowns the skyline gracefully...it aint that hard. What's further, this is a residential tower, not an office tower. There are better options for crowning the sky. But even the base can be better served. One57 also shows how a large tower can fit in with the street. This tower doesn't even try.


http://distilleryimage1.s3.amazonaws...0a1fb04e_8.jpg__http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...4213.jpg?w=262
alexanderbank

This, of course, from none other than Gary Barnett. But yeah, look around.

^that will be a beautiful skyscraper cluster when all is said and done. (it's beyond gorgeous already!) And i'm hoping I can ignore this atrocity and let the sacrifice be done ;)

Art history anyone?

Define skyscraper fans.

Sure, we can look around to see which is a nice building but knowing a buildings history (i.e. financing problems, design revisions, etc..) ... who knows that much? lol

Anyone who bothers to join, let alone post in a skyscraper forum particularly devoted to skyscrapers would be classified as a skyscraper fan. Or skyscraper enthusiast if that fits your palate better. I really don't give a damn what you want to call yourself, you are certainly aware of skyscrapers.

I had such anticipation for something spectacular and we wound up with a very simple, basic and plain design that is designed to blend in (which is actually a good thing, since W 57th will host several supertalls).

Perhaps more revisions may improve the design with a possible party hat or (dare I say), spire on top? :shrug:

Barnett has been against any spire or anything on top ( he called it a "gimmick" ). Maybe all of the recent attention to the Freedom Tower spire will encourage other developers to put spires on their towers - exactly the opposite of what the CTBUH wanted.

Barnett should build this baby 1,550 to roof and put up a nice 250 ft tall spire on top, delivering us a nice 1800 footer. :) I know it won't happen, but one can dream right? ;)

The base of the tower is so clunky, glassy, and off putting, I don't think it blends in at street level at all.

As for the tower portion, besides the obnoxious cantilever, a rectangle of glass is the definition of vanilla.

I'm not a big fan of One57th either, but at least it attempts to mass itself in a clever way and tack on some bells and whistles to the facade.

You're probably right, but with the recent media event surrounding One WTC, perhaps there may be hope! :shrug:

If Barnett wants to get on de Blasio's good side, he could put a statue of Che Guevara or Mao on top of this building.:rainbow: