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)

gramsjdg Apr 29, 2015 5:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 7008074)
That rendering was produced by AS + GG. But you can ignore it if you want, I mean some people don't believe in evolution either.

Fine.

be aware, however that your habit of always responding with immature sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

UrbanImpact Apr 29, 2015 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7008082)
Fine.

be aware, however that your habit of always responding with immature sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

I wouldn't knock him.....he's the one that gave us all the info on this tower with his blog. :notacrook:

chris08876 Apr 29, 2015 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7008082)
Fine.

be aware, however that your habit of always responding with immature sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

Nikolai is one of the best resources for projects. He's a good man and hard worker. He just doesn't tolerate silliness. :P

Him, and Robert Walpole (who've I talked too), are the best resources for projects. The eyes and ears of the city people.

RW should be unbanned. Do you know how much the NY threads would benefit from his updates? A ton! He's somebody who's actually in the city all the time and gets hard to get photo updates of obscure projects and info on possible mergers/assemblages. SSP would be way more competitive with his work.

sparkling Apr 29, 2015 4:03 PM

New Yorkers Slam Central Park's Shadow-Casting Megatowers

Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Evan Bindelglass


Quote:

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/MAS%20A...port-thumb.png

About a year after a crowded, heated meeting on the same topic, the public has spoken once again on the subject of the many tall towers destined to loom large over Central Park. Neighbors, preservationists, urbanists, and other concerned citizens are, to put it mildly, extremely unhappy. (As are archicritics, by the by.) Concerns range from the shadows they cast to the impact their density has on neighborhood safety and schools—and even the "phallic" nature of the buildings themselves. New Yorkers of all stripes had a chance to air grievances last night at a standing-room-only town hall meeting of Community Board 5's Central Park Sunshine Task Force (yes, that's a thing) at the New York Public Library.

The first meeting of the task force, held in February of 2014, also featured Extell Development's Gary Barnett (behind One57 and the Nordstrom Tower), who defended his projects. The task force leaders have said will take everyone's thoughts into account, and hope to make their final recommendations at Community Board 5's full board meeting in May.

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/MAS%20A...%202-thumb.png

Task force member Layla Law-Gisiko, who also ran the event, kicked off a long series of speakers by touching on the history of New York City zoning, emphasizing how its laws aren't set in stone and have been renewed over the years, and how there's no better time for new zoning laws.

She was followed Clayton Smith, who chairs CB5's Parks & Public Spaces Committee. He talked about the shadows these towers would create and how "megatowers will wall off Central Park." He spoke of 20-degree temperature differences between light and shadow and how he has already seen reports of reduced use of some playgrounds. He said Central Park is a front yard, not a back yard.

CB5's Renee Cafaro talked about safety issues with the tall towers. That includes falling construction equipment and debris, traffic issues caused by the construction leading to slower emergency responses, falling ice and snow, wind, and other quality of life issues. She called for accountability with it comes to construction.

After her, the task force's David Diamond talked about transparency. He asked, "How have glass buildings become so opaque?" Diamond called for more public notification when lots are merged, and lamented how the use of shell companies makes it difficult to even know who owns much of these buildings.

A representative of Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal spoke of her worry of overdevelopment leading to shadows, school issues, transportation issues, and other social services issues. A representative of City Councilman Daniel Garodnick commended the task force and called Central Park the city's "most cherished green space," a place that gives people a break from the "hubbub." Garodnick's representative expressed skepticism of rampant as-of-right development and said "the tail is wagging the dog." A representative of City Councilman Corey Johnson said zoning needs to protect Central Park. Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer (herself and not an emissary) called for more transparency when it comes to air rights transfers and also worried about the shadows that would be cast.

The Municipal Art Society's Anand Amin called for actions that would prevent the creation of an "accidental skyline." That includes requiring buildings that use development bonuses above a certain threshold to be subject to some level of public review (Michael Kimmelman would agree), encouraging the City Council to pass legislation to evaluate the effects shadows have on parks and public spaces, having the Department of City Planning notify elected officials and community boards when merged zoning lots are created, and urging the city to pursue "an incentive program for good design so new buildings enhance neighborhood character." Sean Khorsandi of Landmark West!, an Upper West Side preservation group, said "out-of-scale luxury development not only jeopardizes the future enjoyment of Central Park but spreads northward along the east and west sides of the park with deleterious impact upon our neighbors."

As for members of the general public, they had a variety of complaints and suggestions and, in all, 13 of them spoke. (Some submitted written testimony instead.) The best zinger was from a man named Howard Charles Yourow, who happens to sit on the board of the Historic Districts Council, another preservation group. He said we were witnessing the "phallic imperative at work." Many people cried foul about the shadows or a strain on city services. Some people called for a moratorium on these tall buildings, or zoning changes.

A representative of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development called for downzoning, a height limit, environmental impact studies on building taller than 25 stories, operable windows (since not installing them means greater energy usage for ventilation systems), a "sunshine clause," and measures to account for storm surges. One woman said these new towers will be empty buildings that don't offer anything to the community. She also called for new buildings not to be more than 10 floors taller than their sites' previous occupants.

One person called for a public protest against these new buildings, complete with black umbrellas, though someone else said all of this was too little, too late. Another suggested mandating mirrored mylar be used to try to replace some of the light lost by new construction. Still another said these new buildings will be terrorist targets.

Whew, what a motley crew of opinions—some moderate, some extreme—to compile. The task force hopes to present its final recommendations at CB5's full board meeting on Thursday, May 14 at the Xavier High School library at 30 West 16th Street. If not then, then they will be presented at the full board meeting on Thursday, June 11 at the same location.

chris08876 Apr 29, 2015 4:11 PM

Quote:

A representative of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development called for downzoning, a height limit, environmental impact studies on building taller than 25 stories, operable windows (since not installing them means greater energy usage for ventilation systems), a "sunshine clause," and measures to account for storm surges. One woman said these new towers will be empty buildings that don't offer anything to the community. She also called for new buildings not to be more than 10 floors taller than their sites' previous occupants.
:haha: This is Gotham City, not Ballsack, Kentucky. If they want low rises, aka trees, move there.

Quote:

Still another said these new buildings will be terrorist targets.
:koko:

Quote:

The Municipal Art Society's Anand Amin called for actions that would prevent the creation of an "accidental skyline."
With the age of the internet, and resources such as the WSJ, and NY Times, they should not be in the twilight zone about developments. Just a quick visit here will demystify their confusion.

Ploppalopp Apr 29, 2015 4:24 PM

^^^lol @ ballsack, KY. I'm really excited to see what news Otie will give us about this tower. It sounds really promising.:)

dendenden Apr 29, 2015 4:46 PM

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6...o/CAM00739.jpg

Onn Apr 29, 2015 6:51 PM

Yes, because Tower Verre's shadows are going to go wayyyy into Central Park...

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/MAS%20A...%202-thumb.png
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/0...megatowers.php

THE BIG APPLE Apr 29, 2015 7:05 PM

^ The zoning laws in NYC use backward logic. Tower Verre should be the tallest in that bunch, and the buildings closest to Central Park should be shorter. But because it's as of right, we can't stop it. I asked Madame Amanda Burden about this and she was speechless.

The heights should be as follows (if we play devils advocate and consider the deadly shadows)

- Tower Verre: 1,650 feet
- One 57: 1000 feet
- 225 West 57th: 1300 feet
- 432 Park Avenue: 1200 feet
- 111 West 57th Street: 1350 feet

In a perfect world where the NIMBY's and the skyscraper fanatics are both happy. But sadly we don't live in a perfect world.

Onn Apr 29, 2015 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE (Post 7008821)
^ The zoning laws in NYC use backward logic. Tower Verre should be the tallest in that bunch, and the buildings closest to Central Park should be shorter. But because it's as of right, we can't stop it. I asked Madame Amanda Burden about this and she was speechless.

The heights should be as follows (if we play devils advocate and consider the deadly shadows)

- Tower Verre: 1,650 feet
- One 57: 1000 feet
- 225 West 57th: 1300 feet
- 432 Park Avenue: 1200 feet
- 111 West 57th Street: 1350 feet

In a perfect world where the NIMBY's and the skyscraper fanatics are both happy. But sadly we don't live in a perfect world.

I don't think anyone ever throught they would build 1,000 feet+ on 57th Street. Tower Verre's site is much more predicable being that's closer to other towers of that height.

But I wouldn't get too wrapped up in their complaints. 1.) The shadows are not a big problem in relation to Central Park, people will soon figure that out 2.) Its long past the point where the zoning laws could be changed or challenged. I think the current developers of the supertall towers already grabbed some of the best spots in the area.

chris08876 Apr 29, 2015 7:36 PM

It also garners the support of the pro-development administration. Assemblages of the surrounding properties will be the future for the area, yielding massive towers.

rothko Apr 30, 2015 1:45 AM

Something about this building just feels obnoxious, and tall just for the sake of being tall. That being said, the bottom portion of the building is very nice. Shorten this and I'll like it.

Zapatan Apr 30, 2015 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rothko (Post 7009354)
Something about this building just feels obnoxious, and tall just for the sake of being tall. That being said, the bottom portion of the building is very nice. Shorten this and I'll like it.

:koko:

To each their own but this country is building a new highest roof in over 40 years, that's awesome. This building would be okay if it were smaller but the fact that it's such a giant makes it all the better. It's taller than 432 park avenue and has a nicer facade (IMO) to boot.

BrownTown Apr 30, 2015 3:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rothko (Post 7009354)
Something about this building just feels obnoxious, and tall just for the sake of being tall. That being said, the bottom portion of the building is very nice. Shorten this and I'll like it.

LOL, nobody on this forum is ever going to get behind the idea of shortening a tower. I'd say just widen it a little so that the proportions look a little more normal. Of course it's being tall for the sake of being tall, what other reason is there for a building this height?

jsr Apr 30, 2015 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 7009472)
LOL, nobody on this forum is ever going to get behind the idea of shortening a tower.

Because they are obsessed with the numerology of height.

Crawford Apr 30, 2015 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 7009472)
LOL, nobody on this forum is ever going to get behind the idea of shortening a tower. I'd say just widen it a little so that the proportions look a little more normal. Of course it's being tall for the sake of being tall, what other reason is there for a building this height?

Because the taller they go, the more apartments have spectacular views. You try and concentrate the available buildable area as high as possible, obviously. It's basically to make as much money as possible.

It isn't "tall for the sake of being tall" that makes no sense. These projects aren't vanity projects; Extell is headed by Gary Barnett, who is a media-averse Orthodox Jew who lives in a religious neighborhood in Queens.

Zapatan Apr 30, 2015 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsr (Post 7009700)
Because they are obsessed with the numerology of height.

This also a skyscraper forum and height is what makes a skyscraper a skyscraper. It's not everything but it's something for sure. If there was never any desire to build taller we would never have seen the Pyramids, Chrysler Building, ESB, Sears, Burj Khalifa ect.

I like height and am thrilled this building will be ~1500' to roof with a real spire.

NYguy May 4, 2015 12:21 PM

Get ready for some hysterical nonsense...



http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/save-ce...ter-buildings/

Save Central Park from the attack of the monster buildings!


By Nicole Gelinas
May 3, 2015


Quote:

New, super tall towers along West 57th Street and Central Park South are casting the park below 72nd Street into deeper shadow.

If you don’t like this, who do you blame?

Not greedy developers or evil foreign billionaires.

Instead, blame the mayor and your city councilperson — because they could have stopped this a year ago if they wanted to.


Everyone who walks through Midtown — or peers at it from the park — has noticed One57, the 1,004-foot apartment tower between Sixth and Seventh avenues (the one where the crane fell off), and 432 Park Ave., the 1,396-foot tower at Park and 56th (28 feet taller than the old World Trade Center’s north tower).

Six to 11 more are coming. Extell, the One57 developer, is building another, 1,479-foot tower a block away.

There’s nothing wrong with tall. The old World Trade Center towers defined our skyline. And change is good, too.

But there’s nothing wrong, either, with government responding to change.

That’s what’s been happening in our city for a century: Just as developers figure out how to build new things, the city makes sure they’re building those new things under some rational rules.

As the Municipal Art Society — which helped save Grand Central Terminal as well as the Tweed Courthouse last century — points out, New York got its first zoning code in 1916.

That was a year after the 38-story Equitable Building “rose straight up from the sidewalk, blocking sunlight to surrounding offices.”

The new code forced developers to build towers set back from the street so as not to block out (too much) light and air.

Today, the same thing is happening that always happens: Technology is outpacing regulations. Just as Airbnb can turn apartment buildings into hotels, developers can use modern design and engineering to build ever-tallertowers into the sky on tiny, tiny spaces.

This is not entirely good.

The new Extell tower will cast a three-quarters-of-a-mile shadow along Central Park on a winter day — just when New Yorkers stuck in the city most need a little sun.

And yes, yes, each individual shadow is small. But all of them together, as Clayton Smith of Community Board 5 said at a town-hall meeting last week, “will wall off Central Park South.”

And as the Municipal Art Society’s Anand Amin added, “The fundamental problem here is outdated zoning regulations,” allowing for new buildings to have “a dramatic impact on . . . ­Central Park.”

Calling a timeout and deciding what’s more important in this particular circumstance — private construction and building-maintenance jobs, or the protection of a public asset that future generations will use — is perfectly reasonable.

And it’s not that hard. As Amin noted, “The city could issue a temporary moratorium on building permits for super-tall towers” . . . today.

Yet city pols seem content to talk about the matter without doing anything.

The community board has been studying shadows for more than a year.
Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer told the attendees that “we don’t want shadows on our park” — but didn’t say much beyond that.

City Councilmembers Dan Gar­od­nick, Corey Johnson and Mark Levine, who all represent the area, are all deeply concerned, too — they make sure to tell their constituents. But they haven’t done anything, either.

Levine wants the council to think about passing a bill creating . . . another task force.

And Mayor de Blasio has been quiet.

As Amin of the Municipal Art Society told the concerned citizenry, “In the 18 months” since the society’s initial shadow report came out, “there has been no city action in response, while more towers threaten to overwhelm our parks and public spaces . . . [T]he de Blasio administration needs to take action.”

By the time the council and the mayor do something, all the new towers will be up, or far along — or the luxury real-estate bubble will have burst, and developers won’t be building them, anyway.

You can consider for yourself whether that’s corruption — the pols are afraid of big real estate — or incompetence.

Whichever.

But the next time you hear a pol complaining about foreign billionaires shadowing Central Park, remember that talk is cheap, winter is coming — and the shadows will soon grow longer.


What an idiot.

sparkling May 4, 2015 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7014055)

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/save-ce...ter-buildings/

Save Central Park from the attack of the monster buildings!


By Nicole Gelinas
May 3, 2015

remember that talk is cheap, winter is coming

http://static02.mediaite.com/themary...03/GoTWall.jpg

Central Park and snow covered "Billionaires' Row"

rothko May 5, 2015 12:31 AM

See and I'm good with that! I'm proud of a new highest roof. My opposition is the design aspect of this particular project. In this case, the height doesn't fit its aesthetic (at least in my opinion--to each his own, as you said). I would rather see the record broken in another context.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:07 AM.

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