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)

JayPro Jul 13, 2014 1:29 PM

@Crawford at al;

I'll say this and wait for the next relevant battery of postage to rear its head.

I'd like to think that the reception of a supertall in an American or western European city should be seen as nothing more than an extremely pleasant surprise. That said, There still needs to be what I perceive as extreme vigilance against a propensity everywhere else in the world to build tall as if to engage in some kind of obsessive-compulsive pissing contest.

CCs77 Jul 13, 2014 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6652470)
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.


I do think that it is a bit outlandish to think that this was leaked on purpose by Gary Barnett to see the reactions of the people and make as you said a "design by committee", but in the other hand I think you are understimating the influence that post in NYYimby had. ( I have to say that I myself am surprised of how quick the news spread of that site)

Soon after it appeared there, it was shown in other real estate blogs, such as the real deal or curbed, and it was mentioned in the CTUBH site.

And not only that, it made an article at the New York Daily News and even in a TV news program at Q13 Fox News. So by now, this news is a matter of the general public knowledge and not only of the small skyscraper geek community.

I don't know what happened there, if the guy that leaked the information knew that there won't be consequences from Extell for leaking the information, but it is even possible that Extell itself authorized the leak, Anyway, it seems that they didn't care about the design partially revealed. Not so long ago, NYYimby published an entry about a huge development in Jersey City, taken from the site of the architect involved itself, and a couple of days after, the architect took the information off his site and required Yimby to do the same.

babybackribs2314 Jul 13, 2014 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6652470)
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.

I know first-hand that you are very wrong on the first part of paragraph #2, but otherwise good post. ;)

Also: thread title should be changed to 225 West 57th Street, as 217 W 57th is not the address they are using.

Crawford Jul 13, 2014 5:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6652763)
I know first-hand that you are very wrong on the first part of paragraph #2, but otherwise good post. ;)

Well I'm sorry to NY YIMBY then. It's a fantastic website, and I check it almost daily.

My point is that building height is not a big deal outside of the context of skyscraper fans. Gary Barnett isn't spending time agonizing over whether the building is 1775 or 1550 or whatever. He's trying to make a building as profitable as possible.

The point is that they're going with the most profitable design. Height, while not completely irrelevent, is just a function of what the bean counters believe will be the design best received by the condo-buying public. No one (outside of SSP) is losing sleep over the exact specs, except for how they relate to the future success of this tower.

aquablue Jul 13, 2014 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6652772)
Well I'm sorry to NY YIMBY then. It's a fantastic website, and I check it almost daily.

My point is that building height is not a big deal outside of the context of skyscraper fans. Gary Barnett isn't spending time agonizing over whether the building is 1775 or 1550 or whatever. He's trying to make a building as profitable as possible.

The point is that they're going with the most profitable design. Height, while not completely irrelevent, is just a function of what the bean counters believe will be the design best received by the condo-buying public. No one (outside of SSP) is losing sleep over the exact specs, except for how they relate to the future success of this tower.

Tell you what, go interview Barnett, Trump, or other 'scraper developers and ask THEM if they ever have cared about height and then come here and say that. You may be surprised. Problem is, they probably wouldn't admit it for fear of appearing childishly egotistical..

KevinFromTexas Jul 14, 2014 1:09 AM

I like this tower. I think it's the best new supertall NY has in the works right now. So many supertalls are boring these days. Just tall featureless shafts with little facade detail. While this tower may not have an intricate facade, the shape and massing are great. I like supertalls with interesting setbacks and massing. Basically if you can see one side of a building and not need to see another side to know what it looks like, then it's pretty boring. Same goes for the base and top. Supertalls being so tall, it's really hard to put any details into the facade that will be effectively visible from the ground, so having setbacks or indentions in the facade is the best way to make them interesting. This building has enough going on to keep your eye interested. This is way better than 432 Park.

mistermetAJ Jul 14, 2014 1:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supertallchaser (Post 6652293)
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.

You are convoluting architectural criticism with an engineering feat. The engineering can impressive and still be a terrible architectural design, which this seems to be. The same can be said about 432 Park.

Michael12374 Jul 14, 2014 2:29 AM

lets stop complaining about the design when we havent even seen any official renderings yet.

babybackribs2314 Jul 14, 2014 7:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6652772)
Well I'm sorry to NY YIMBY then. It's a fantastic website, and I check it almost daily.

My point is that building height is not a big deal outside of the context of skyscraper fans. Gary Barnett isn't spending time agonizing over whether the building is 1775 or 1550 or whatever. He's trying to make a building as profitable as possible.

The point is that they're going with the most profitable design. Height, while not completely irrelevent, is just a function of what the bean counters believe will be the design best received by the condo-buying public. No one (outside of SSP) is losing sleep over the exact specs, except for how they relate to the future success of this tower.

No apology needed! And thank you! :)

And yes, profit is the motivating factor here. Which is why the supertall boom in NYC is actually sustainable.

No other place on Earth (besides HK) is subject to the limiting factors of Manhattan. While projects like 1 WTC have been prohibitively expensive, I think advances in tech with the most recent supertalls (including 432 Park) have paved the way for a new generation that will be available for the mass market, presenting a previously infeasible option for solving the housing crisis.

NYC's skyline is undergoing to most exciting transformation in history. To think that what's current/hopefully imminent will push NY back to #1 in the globe is kind of mind-boggling, given how far Manhattan had fallen behind. But it's happening...! :cheers:

BrownTown Jul 14, 2014 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6653463)
I think advances in tech with the most recent supertalls (including 432 Park) have paved the way for a new generation that will be available for the mass market, presenting a previously infeasible option for solving the housing crisis.

Is it actually true that there has been any improvement in technology that has significantly affected the ability to build skyscrapers? It sure looks like they are built of the same concrete and steel that they have always been built with. Generally speaking the cost of a building has always increased exponentially with floor count and looking at the cost of these buildings that still seems to be the case. The only real cost advantage I can see in the current buildings is that they are for the super wealthy and therefor have large units which means less people and therefore less elevators are needed. So far as I can tell it would still be financially impossible to build a supertall for the "mass market" or that had enough units to have any significant effect on the housing crisis. So far as I can tell the only change in the last few years that has allowed more supertalls to be built is the widening income disparity that has caused the number of ultra-wealthy to increase substantially. However, this only worsens the housing issues because the converse is that the vast majority of people have less money and therefore need even cheaper housing.

NYguy Jul 14, 2014 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6653514)
Is it actually true that there has been any improvement in technology that has significantly affected the ability to build skyscrapers?

There has been some, but by how much is the question. The last exhibit at the skyscraper museum featured this.

What's really driving these supertalls in Manhattan as far as residential goes is the fact that people are willing to spend the amounts they are for those upper spaces. Given the high costs of land and building such towers, that is what drives it. It's the reason you're not seeing these types of towers going up all over the place. New York isn't the only city that can build a super-slim, super-tall tower. It just happens to be one of the few places where it makes sense.




http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...H/sky_high.htm

Quote:

SKY HIGH examines the recent proliferation of super-slim, ultra-luxury residential towers on the rise in Manhattan. These pencil-thin buildings-all 50 to 90+ stories-constitute a new type of skyscraper in a city where tall, slender structures have a long history.

Sophisticated engineering and advances in material strengths have made these spindles possible, but it is the excited market for premium Manhattan real estate that is driving both heights and prices skyward, Reported sales seem almost inconceivable: some penthouses in the buildings featured here are in contract for $47 million to $95 million.

The rarified geographies of where these projects take shape and the economics of high land costs, high-style design and construction, and stratospheric sales prices are deconstructed.

Ultra-luxury is a distinct clientele, to which the towers' developers direct their branding and marketing psychology. But there is also a "simple math" in the logic of luxury that shapes the design of these projects in every aspect.

ChiTownWonder Jul 15, 2014 12:13 AM

personally i don't like when the side of a building juts out from the side, but on this tower its low enough where it wouldn't be noticed too much in the skyline. nice height but the spire is a bit unnecessary, its oddly placed and doesn't really add much.

NYguy Jul 15, 2014 1:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder (Post 6654588)
personally i don't like when the side of a building juts out from the side, but on this tower its low enough where it wouldn't be noticed too much in the skyline. nice height but the spire is a bit unnecessary, its oddly placed and doesn't really add much.


We'll have to see the official renderings on that. I agree that it would look better without the cantilever, even though it seems toned down slightly. As far as the spire design, it's not different than a lot of spires. I keep particularly thinking of his asymmetrical spire on top of the Trump Tower Chicago, it's a similar placing. That tower doesn't need it either, but it would look much different without it. I think the same can be said here, if Barnett does indeed follow through with the spire. I mentioned earlier, Manhattan's tallest should have a spire.

What I don't like about the spire is that it stops at 1,775 ft. I find that too close to the Freedom Tower's height to be a coincidence. We know that Adrian Smith was Nordstrom's choice of architect. Barnett had previously said there would be no spire, but who knows how much influence Nordstrom had on the design. They do own the store and the site, Extell owns the tower above. Maybe a compromise? Or maybe the other 57th Street towers were getting to close in height, or maybe it's just the architect doing what he does - designing a building. I think we sometimes read too much into it. If the spire is built, it'll just be another building with a spire.


A comparison with his Trump spire...

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...-Elevation.jpg_https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2171/...241a5689_z.jpg
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/07/nor...-building.html

bk bob

joeg1985 Jul 15, 2014 1:55 AM

I really like the spire on top of this building as it's been rendered this far. The spire completes the almost pop art does abstract feeling the design has. A very distinct image and another interesting addition to the skyline.

NYguy Jul 15, 2014 12:32 PM

At least we know the trees will be safe...



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156585611/original.jpg

hunser Jul 15, 2014 12:46 PM

I'd certainly welcome a nice spire on 57th street. The skyline needs variety. 432 PA has a flat roof, One57 and 220 CPS nice crowns and 111W a glass spire / crown. So yes, 217W should absolutely add a spire.

techchallenger Jul 15, 2014 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6653463)
NYC's skyline is undergoing to most exciting transformation in history.

I love your enthusiasm, but the above is meant as hyperbole right?

hunser Jul 15, 2014 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techchallenger (Post 6655208)
I love your enthusiasm, but the above is meant as hyperbole right?

I don't think so. The current skyline transformation is even bigger than the one in the 1920s/30s.

McBane Jul 15, 2014 2:25 PM

Why is it that with all the NYC threads, you have to search and search for renderings? Isn't it supposed to be the standard that the first post in a new building thread is supposed to have all the key data including renderings?

Perklol Jul 15, 2014 2:29 PM

Good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I have not thought of that but I do agree with you. Also I should add that some thread starters were banned or are no longer active so maybe that is why the first post were never updated.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:08 PM.

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