SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 6:15 PM


Originally Posted by uaarkson (Post 6289134)
I don't get all the fuss here. I think the design looks promising (what we've seen so far of it). Even if it's a let-down I can't figure out where all this hate is coming from.

Because the tallest, most prominent building in the city shouldn't be a let down.

401PAS Oct 3, 2013 6:33 PM

Looks like a gun from this angle. Or someone "flipping the bird"

Both quite unfortunate metaphors...


Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6286860)

Hard to get a read when we can't see the whole building, but it doesn't look bad. I kind of like the cantilevering actually.

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 6:39 PM

I just came across this series of images from's 225W thread, courtesy of poster jconyc:
It was mentioned there that the residential portion would indeed have at least one setback.
That said, notice on two the images at far right that there looks clearly to be one near the top.
Also, if you look carefully at the same pair, the side facing the viewer seems to get narrower as the tower rises. Because of the poor resolution, tho, it's hard to tell if we're looking at mere perspective or a series of smaller setbacks.
Also, on the two image at far left, I can't help noticing some kind of irregularity to the tower's vertical aspect throughout. Again, fuzzy video or some kind of setback thing happening?
And also, the top section looks to have some kind of indentational element, apparently the same setback asthe one more clearly shown in the two images first discussed.
This is intriguing.

Mike.V Oct 3, 2013 7:20 PM

I'm keeping up hope that they're not showing the top of the building because they want to clear everything with the overhang before revealing an impressive crown that vaults the height over 1450 :)

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 7:37 PM

At this point, three things IMO will make or break this, cantilever notwithstanding:

1.A perhaps enlightening review/editorial courtesy of poster t94 from SkyscraperPage, my emphasis in boldface and edited for relevance. (Take the source or any of the following with however many grains of salt you wish.):


I think they really dealt the cards right on this building. There aren't any half-ass setbacks, half-ass spires or half-ass thinness, it's a bona fide skyscraper soaring to 1423 feet. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It's mass will dominate the skyline which the likes of 432 park, 107th and Tower Verre can't (not that the aforementioned are bad designs, it's just that they lack mass near the top.)
The tower is different. It plays around with the core box/rectangular concepts in skyscrapers and gives it a modern 2013 spin. I think the cantilever is a rather bold move and is almost a bit unsettling to see it tower above you while hanging over the edge. The base looks impressive too, with lots of detailing and a clear emphasis on high-end architecture.
The only way I can see you oppose the design is if you were hoping for some corny, organic design, which wouldn't suit New York at all. It fits with the skyline and looks good while doing it.
2. The facade, whatever it turs out to be; because the fuzzy renders show me almost nothing.

3. How the setbacks--however many there end up being--are dealt with. See above and the pics I uploaded. The highlighted text in the quote is where the rubber's gonna meet the road.

UrbanImpact Oct 3, 2013 8:09 PM

A glass bottom @ the cantilever would be really awesome (like the CN Tower).

babybackribs2314 Oct 3, 2013 8:31 PM

Pic of excavation from 230 CPS. Not great, but it's underway!

NYguy Oct 3, 2013 9:34 PM

^ That's great.

I would actually like this more if it shot straight up, like 432 Park. I could respect that more. You know, one of the things New York prides its skyscrapers on is the connection with the street. Every building comes right down to the street, no matter how short or tall. It's a visual connection. No large mega malls or open parking lots surrounding our towers. Everything comes down to the street, where it's visually connected to everything else. The main shaft, with that cantilever, is so disconnected from the base that I don't feel it gives us that connection. I really do hope they drop it.

And just look how much they are saving with that cantilever. I think the Nordstrom probably has more to do with this than 220 CPS.

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 9:51 PM

I dunno...The more I look at the cantilever in light of the concerns registered here so far, to that measure I ask what the problem is.
It's not as if the thing is practically at grade and insults the street wall or anything. AS it is, one would have to look up pretty high to even notice. And IMO it looks sufficiently removed from the podium so perhaps as not to arouse any sense of visual discontinuity.
Then again, 2ยข.

NYguy Oct 3, 2013 11:34 PM

My entire problem with the cantilver is that it's like a separate tower offset to the side from the base. If part of the tower cantilvered, that's one thing, but the main shaft is off from the base. For me, it cuts away from the full scope of the building's height, at least as viewed from street level where New York's skyscrapers are most viewed. Of course, from the skyline you won't see it. It just looks too cluttered, something you don't really want in a tower of that size.

But it looks to be a done deal, especially with Extell finalizing an agreement with Vornado at 220 CPS. So now we just wait for better renderings to look at the quality of glass and other details we don't get from the video.

JayPro Oct 4, 2013 1:30 AM

JMO, but I find a lack of street-to-structure continuity with Citicorp @ 601 Lex.
I woud've said that the architect kinda screwed the pooch placing those pillars where they did; but the church that was rebuilt there needed space, making what looks to me like a grave mistake in street-level aesthetics more like legitimate and practical consideration.

With this design, I can agree that the placement of the residential shaft makes the whole thing look downright whopperjawed; but I credit the designers for having a set big enough to make something different (dare I suggest the term "avant-garde" least by American highrise standards?), visually and perceptually challenging and worthy of comment, i.e. the spirited debate we have going now.

We all kept saying this is gonna be a Big Mother of a project; and now that we're seeing it's components coming together, albeit through the proverbial glass darkly, I have a feeling that a lot of us are gonna call this a 21st century version of a Yamasaki Trade Tower.

WonderlandPark Oct 4, 2013 1:33 AM

wow, on the face of it, I can't say I care about this at all, kinda like a train wreck of blocks.

At least the SHoP proposal down the street is a stunner.

baseball1992 Oct 4, 2013 1:43 AM

Posted over on SSC, should provide a little relief for the time being.

JayPro Oct 4, 2013 1:53 AM

Thank you for posting that. You beat me to it, actually; but that's okay. This news confirms many a suspicion I've been addressing since last night.

For those in need of a quick fix of info: Our former colleague Robert Walpole has some extremely interesting news for the edification of the critics amongst us.
PS: For those not familiar, the abovementioned poster now at SSC was the one responsible for giving us here what turned out to be reliable info on 432 Park's final design based on inside information he received.
Let the debate take new directions from here on in............

mistermetAJ Oct 4, 2013 1:59 AM


Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6289802)
Thank you for posting that. You beat me to it, actually; but that's okay. This news confirms many a suspicion I've been addressing since last night.
For those in need of a quick fix of info: Our former colleague Robert Walpole has some extremely interesting news for the edification of the critics amongst us.

WooHoo!!!! There is still hope for this project. I hope AS and GG make me eat a ton of crow :notacrook::cool:

reencharles Oct 4, 2013 2:39 AM

I'm shocked. This project is a disappointment. Worst of all is that this monster will be constructed in front of Central Park. Maybe if it were built in Times Square might not be so bad. The problem is to see that monstrosity next to One 57, 107 west 57th and 432 Park - buildings that are good (in my opinion). Funny to think, like Extell had the opportunity to make an epic project and did exactly the opposite. About height? At this level, whatever. Anyway, I share my opinion with the majority here.

BUT, I confess that I have hope that this project will be better in the end.

NYC GUY Oct 4, 2013 2:58 AM

Can someone explain to me what they mean by cantilever?

JayPro Oct 4, 2013 3:02 AM


Originally Posted by reencharles (Post 6289857)
I confess that I have hope that this project will be better in the end.

Which IMO is precisely why baseball1992 posted what he did.

JayPro Oct 4, 2013 3:12 AM


Originally Posted by NYC GUY (Post 6289885)
Can someone explain to me what they mean by cantilever?

It refers to a portion of a building that extends from its set perimeter in some way.

If you can recall the horrid example that 5 WTC gave us with its tray-like extension over the soon-to-be-rebuilt Greeek Orthodox Church @ WTC, that's a perfect example. Rem Koolhaus is a big proponent of the concept.

WonderlandPark Oct 4, 2013 3:13 AM

OK, Will withhold my dislike on this tower. If it were a massing model, they should stick to a greyscale model, by putting glass in the model it suggests a more final design. I have no problem with a tower this size near Central Park, I just want it to be something special.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.