Give it some time, the tower is not even out of the hole yet. I don't think this is the project I would be most worried about, it's in good hands.

Hate the cantilever, but at least it doesn't seem very prominent (in that view)

I'm surprised at the responses. I thought everyone was going to be as excited as I was after seeing this rendering. I was in Grant Park in Chicago 2 years ago and I was blown away by how in your face the skyscrapers were from the park and I feel like this building is going to give me the same feel from Central Park. Compared to 157 and 432 this tower blows them away. 157 is a complete eye sore in my opinion and I'm glad the Nordstrom tower is going to take some of the focus from that multicolored piece of crap. I do love the tower verre and the steinway building but I don't think we are ever going to get the masterpiece building of the old days like the Woolworth building. The Nordstrom tower will be a very tall box but I thinks it's going to have the same presence as the Sears tower does.

This is really how point towers should be done. Nice and skinny so they can build on any lot, and then buy the air rights above their low rise neighbors and soar.

Extell Shoots for a $4.4B Sellout with the Nordstrom Tower, the Most Expensive Ever

==========================================
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2015...wer-ever-sold/
http://www.6sqft.com/extell-shoots-f...xpensive-ever/

I have never been a huge fan of this tower, but it looks amazing from the park in those renders. Much better and more dominant than 432.

It seems this tower is going to be breaking more than one record in the city. :)

And I agree MattyMatt88 with your comments! Seeing the towers in Chicago from Grant Park is very dramatic. I think its party because your looking at them unobstructed from ground level. Nordstrom Tower will be incredibly tall from Central Park. I'm not worried about this one much.

That's exactly how the 57th St towers are being built. All of the complaining about the height loses the fact that they are buying up all of the developable air rights.
The surrounding lowrises will remain lowrises forever because there will be no more to build.




I think we've given it a lot of time, especially considering we usually have an idea of what's going up before it even gets in the ground. And we can only judge from what we see,
the renderings we have.

There are a lot of details we have yet to see. But as far as the basic shape and form goes, no, it is not a very impressive design at all. The impressive feature is the height.

But this is not the only tall tower with impressive height rising in NY, not even on the same street. I hate to keep using Steinway, but it is an even thinner tower that shows "thin" can be
impressive in design also.

I think if this tower tapered more at the top, it would be a little less off-putting for me.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157583035/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/160064831/original.jpg

As Barnett has said multiple times, they are still tweaking the design. So yes there are features we haven't seen yet, and we probably won't until the tower is above ground. The height is obviously impressive, but as we know height doesn't make a building by itself. I assume the architects know this.

Tapering at the top would be nice, you've just added $100 million+ to the building with maybe little floor space. Don't expect the box design to go away, your going to see it again. Interesting shapes for towers are great, they're also expensive to do outside of a curve here or a setback there or a spire. I don't know what fantasy world some people live in. They're clearly having expectations of interesting shapes like in Dubai and China, and its just not reality. There's a reason they weren't built until now. As quickly as those towers swept in they're going to sweep back out again. Every tower isn't going to look like an organic bamboo stick or a giant crown.

someone over in SSC added Steinway to the Nordstrom central park render.. looks pretty close?

http://i.imgur.com/rhik4Su.jpg

I can't see anything. The picture is too dark from all of the shadows.

Stunning shot! 220 CPS actually helps balance out Steinway in that shot.

I'm sure they are still "tweaking" it. But it will be virtually the same design. The changes are relatively minor. It's more what you see is what you will get than expecting some change that will alter the design in some dramatic way. When I say details, I'm talking about glass treatment, specific details of the spire, the view from street level, etc. But pretty much what we see is what we will get as far as the tower they intend to build.



I don't think so. What we have is a parapet hiding mechanical space. If money were an issue with the design as is, I'm sure the spire is by no mean necessary. Drop it and give us a better designed top, and I don't care about the loss in height. As you've said, and I agree, height isn't everything. (And we have many less expensive building with better designed tops, so I don't wanna hear about money as an excuse).





It's close enough.

I belive you can make out the Nordstrom along with Steinway here...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/160065998/original.jpg

Better image...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...to-nyc-skyline

http://media.gotraffic.net/images/i1...8/v1/-1x-1.jpg



(from last month)

https://twitter.com/montse_zamorano

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCxGuqeUkAEsfiG.jpg:large

Hey! That's not real. You have to get a real pictures.

Otie's renders looked much better...

Notice however that the uppermost portion of the tower in these latest renders matches the schematic drawing for the 1530 ft tall version as revealed by YIMBY, NOT the 1479 ft version. The spire also seems to match the official close-up renders of the spire posted by YIMBY just a few weeks ago. Methinks Barnett is trying as hard as possible to keep people in the dark about the final roof and spire height. I am still hoping for at least a 1550' roof and a very robust spire- one which will put the final nail in the coffin of WTC-1's architecturally incomplete spire (CTBUH caved to contrived "patriotic symbolism")

Recall that Barnett had originally stated the Nordstrom tower would be 1550' to the highest occupied floor and would not use a "gimmicky" spire to reach its maximum height...

Could be, but to me at least in the latest rendering the building looked ~1480 feet in comparison to the other buildings, the 1530' foot version was also from a year ago I believe, I think it was just a mix up on YIMBY's part.

I remember that too, I can't trust anything Barnett says anymore.

I hear you...

I believe we started at a nebulous 1250'+, then went to 1550' top occupied floor, then dropped to 1424' roof/parapet, then went up to 1479' parapet and 1775' w/spire, then up a little more to 1530' parapet and 1795' w/spire, then (apparently) down again to 1515' and 1775'? w/spire...

jeez...guess we'll just have to wait until Barnett goes on the record (yeah, right) or the building is T/O

I don't know where everyone is getting that the new design is 1,775 feet from, the design in the newest render is clearly closest to the 1,795 version that Yimby showed a couple days before Extell released their design, as I showed a couple pages back. So you have to think there is a correlation there. The 1,775 foot design figure is actually an earlier estimate than the 1,795 foot figure is as far as we know.

Midtown community board defends ‘access to sunshine’

Dana Rubinstein
May 18, 2015