SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT

Viewing Page 76 of 407

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)

^ Yeah, the hearings are public. I don't know if anyone decided to go. They should be wrapping up by now.

Guess our wishes didn't come through. From NY YIMBY on twitter:

Quote:

New York YIMBY‏@newyorkyimby30m
LPC votes to approve Extell's certificate of appropriateness for the cantilever of 217 W 57th. Will rise 1,423'.

I'm done being disapointed by this tower. NEXT!

ls 1,423 ft to roof or will there be mechanicals above?

After swinging by SSC's 225W thread anc taking a closer look at the models (the gray one at far right was mentioned by Rovert Walpole as the frontrunner render design) I can maybe say this:
1. The cantilever as shown somehow doesn't seem as extreme as has been suggested here; but then again I'm looking from only one angle.
2. There seem to be balcony-like protrusions that appear to show from only one side. I'd Really like to get some close views...and hopefully things will get done right with complete renders instead of partial views.
I wanna see the whole f'n magilla.

I went! And the chair announced my name to speak after this one speaker, and then called someone else next, so I was a bit kerfuffled and terribly anxious when I did speak at the very end, after I had been forgotten two minutes before. But I did speak against the cantilever while simultaneously complimenting Barnett, because he is awesome regardless.

It seems that the LPC could have interpreted the 'appropriate-ness' cantilever in two ways: the first, which is evidently how they did interpret it, is simply the part of 217 W 57th that sits 190 feet above the top of the ASL. The second, which could have merited the argument that the cantilever was inappropriate, would have been looking at the cantilever in addition to the entirety of 217 W 57th above the cantilever.

FWIW, Extell presented no additional renderings/videos at the LPC hearing. Will have a full write-up on YIMBY tomorrow.

There's always Extell's website. I will follow that religiously to see if they'll release the final design there.
As I understand it, most architects' sites do it that way after receiving final approvals.

Did they give any indication as of a crown or is the 1423' figure the ultimate height?

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6311857)

Oh well, I had a feeling this could happen. Maybe the skyscraper gods will intervene in some other fashion to prevent this monstrosity from rising. Or maybe it will be something completely different when the renderings are (if ever) released.

Anyway, with this incident, Gary Barnett is less awesome. I don't care what he builds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6311867)

^ i agree,i truly believe this could have been an opportunity rather than a profit to beautify an already great city with a nicely designed supertall,but we get something boxy,again. :yuck:

Agreed! This was a missed opportunity...at least now I can turn my attention to TV, Steinway, WTC & HY, much more interesting stuff going on there.

Again, though, we actually have to see something. The quickness that some of you are making to pan the whole thing based on one half-assedly illustrated feature of the whole is IMHO a bit disheartening.
Here's my little bone of contention:
How many buildings throughout the country have I been here to see rise with you, only to hear halfway through the above-grade construction process how much some folks absolutely hated it, but suddenly the finished product is like totally killer awesome and a new jewel in the skyline?? There have been a few prominent Gotham examples: NYT (especially! Toothpicks, anyone?) and BofA have had their fair share of hearty critics who ultimately came to repent of their skepticism.
Don't misunderstand me, please: Indeed, they were in the right to vent their feelings as much as they were to change them. QF, we should congratulate one another here for the overall civility and respect for differing opinion that's steered this cantilever issue from the beginning.
I'm sure that most of us can muster a tentative willingness to see if whatever gets built stands the test of time. What puzzles me a bit, though, is how often some here choose to get back on the same SS Schadenfreude boat ride, when nine times out of ten everything turns out 100x better than what their grim expectation would have otherwise suggested.
Feel free to correct my perceptions, or to even take offense if my words are construed as unfair. I'm just waxing tangential on what I perhaps should've left at the first sentence of this post.

Anyway....

Whatever we're in for, it's doubtless gonna be a radical departure from anything that could be appropriately defined as architectural expectations for this city.
The doors of my mind remain thrown wide open.

Full write-up! Hope you guys like.

http://www.yimbynews.com/2013/10/app...rom-tower.html

The details on the current model are rather tantalizing. It looks like the things I'd really like to see are pointed away from the viewer.
The setback treatment at the viewer-facing side is worth some closer looks as well. I'm intrigued as to how many I might not be seeing right now.
There's been talk--and, from the looks of it on the model in question--now visual proof of some kind of angled profile at the top a la 150G/4 WTC. How far down from the top remains to be seen. IMO the longer, the better.

One profile IMO is not make-or-break, though.

Right now, two things again IMO are:
1. The facade, as I mentioned earlier.
2. Thorough examination of the "sawtoothy" balcony treatment. To wit, these are nowhere near as awkward or just plain chunky as those for so many residential projects in Toronto. This, IMO, is a good thing.

Now......
Get Those MF Renders Out, Gents! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6312008)

The massing by itself will ruin CPS. I don't care about the details. It should be thin and tapering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6312067)

The massing by itself will ruin CPS. I don't care about the details. It should be thin and tapering.

The massing is a problem because it is the thing that will define the tower on the skyline. I'm sure the glass or whatever could be made to look nice, but that's besides the point. The tower itself is very awkwardly designed, and that's from looking at the photos of the models, not the bad renderings we've seen.

http://observer.com/2013/10/occluded...udents-league/

Occluded Sky, Okay: Landmarks Approves Extell’s Plan to Cantilever Nordstrom Tower Over Art Students League

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=260&h=300

By Kim Velsey
10/22/13

Quote:

Despite strong community opposition, including that of the local community board, this afternoon, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved Extell’s request to cantilever its 1,424-foot skyscraper over the Art Students League.

The vote was six to one in favor of the application, which will allow Extell to cantilever its Smith + Gorden Gill-designed tower at 217 West 57th Street over the comparatively diminutive French Renaissance building next door. In their discussion before the vote, the LPC cited the minimal impact of the cantilever—which is some 290 feet high and not visible from all vantage points—on the experience of the landmark, as well as the building’s contextually-sensitive cladding.

“The height at which it [the cantilever] projects is taller than all the other buildings on the block,” said LPC chair Robert Tierney, asserting that the protrusion would not detract from the landmark’s’ contextual setting on the block. Though at the beginning of the discussion he chided the developer for not providing renderings that offered more robust site lines and comprehensive views of the project.

The limited renderings seemed yet another example of Extell emphasizing, as it has before, that the project is as-of-right and that the community should only consider the feature, the cantilever over a landmark, that requires their review. Despite the widespread feeling that the spate of skyscrapers rising along the 57th Street deserves broader community consideration—in the words of the Municipal Arts Society’s Ronda Wist, “We understand that as-of-right development gives developers and the public a certain level of certainty, but we believe that cumulative change of this magnitude should be carefully planned”—the LPC apparently agreed.

Landmarks approval clears the way for Extell to move forward with project, which will house New York’s first Nordstrom in its base and a hotel and luxury condos on the upper levels.

Extell president Gary Barnett said that he was pleased with the decision. “I think you can see it was very well-considered; landmarks agreed this would have little to no impact on the building,” he said. “I’m excited to see this project move forward.”

Earlier this month, the commission also approved JDS’s request to cantilever its SHoP-designed, 1,350-foot tower at 107 West 57th Street over the landmarked Steinway building.

The lone dissenting vote Tuesday afternoon was Christopher Moore. “I think they have a clear option not to do it… It is being build in a landmark site and I think it should rise to the that level,” Mr. Moore said. “The setbacks and the height are mitigating factors, but I think the cantilever will have an impact on this landmark.”

The community, however, came out in droves to voice their opposition to the cantilever and to the rapidly-multiplying number of skyscrapers along the corridor.

“It is not appropriate to turn this landmark into a doorway for another building,” said Layla Law-Gisiko, the board member who attended the hearing on behalf of CB5. “All of our beloved buildings are going to be overshadowed by cantilevers.”

Ms. Law-Gisiko reiterated the community board’s request for a shadow study, more information on materials, mechanical equipment, lighting, traffic and transit improvements, as well a response to concerns about safety following the One57 crane incidents.

Landmarks West, the Historic Districts Council and the Society for the Architecture of the City also voiced their opposition to the cantilever: “Architecture exists in space and a small jewel by Hardenbergh deserves to hold its place, even on millionaire’s row,” declared Christabel Gough, the Society for Architecture’s secretary.

Supporters of the cantilever included the NY Hotel Trades Council, the American Institute of Architects NY, and the Art Students League, which will receive $25 million for allowing Extell to cantilever over its building, in addition to the $23.5 million that it already received for the sale of its air rights.

One overeager Nordstrom fan even came to voice her support, telling the LPC that it should approve the cantilever because “many of us have been waiting for a Nordstom for years!”

But Nordstrom spokesman Colin Johnson played down the retailer’s need for the cantilever after the vote, which has been often cited as the reason the element was essential to the design (the cantilever will reduce the need for columns in the Nordstrom store), telling The Observer that “ultimately, it was a design issue for the floors above us.”

Ms. Law-Gisiko said that she was disappointed with the decision: “We issued a denial that was not a punishing denial. We were really hoping to establish a dialogue with a developer who is building, and hopes to build more, in our community.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO (Post 6312162)

...I did not see the world balcony....I did not see the world balcony....

Wait. Like Miami-style balconies? I hope you're not serious.

http://static1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/...236c7d1f2b.jpg
teevanator

So one cantilever is ago, one's not. Is that where we are so far?

Oh no. They allowed this after all. Perhaps Barnett could increase the height b/c of 220 CPS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6312155)

In the article the LPC representative talked about "contextually sensitive cladding." What the hell is that person talking about? Since when has glass been contextual with beautiful limestone and red brick?

Extell has these people in their pockets...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6312525)

Nevermind, i realized the answer to my own question. It was in reference to the Broadway side.

Viewing Page 76 of 407