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)

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 12:23 PM

^ Pretty good, the city of supertalls...




http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1473461

New 1,550-foot tower at 215 W. 57th St. will be the tallest building in New York City other than 1 World Trade Center, and tallest if you don't count 1 WTC's 400-foot spire
New Yorkers get first look at condo tower just off Broadway that will house city's first Nordstrom's



http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...uilding-01.jpg

The 1,350-foot tower at 107 W. 57th St. would be as tall as the Empire State Building, and one of the largest apartment towers in the world. It is one of roughly half-a-dozen towers over 1,000 feet popping up in midtown, where international buyers are gobbling up multi-million-dollar condos like hotcakes.


By Matt Chaban
October 1, 2013


Quote:

It was a big day for big buildings on 57th St.

On Tuesday, New Yorkers got their first look at 215 W. 57th St., a 1,550-foot condo tower in the works just off Broadway.

It would be the tallest building in the city, not counting the 1,776-foot 1 World Trade Center. But the 104-story downtown tower includes a nearly 400-foot spire.

The developer, Gary Barnett, is already famous for his One57 a block to the east, a 1,005-foot tower that is set to be the city’s tallest apartment building when it opens next year. Two apartments in the building, including the 87th floor penthouse, have sold for more than $90 million, a city record.

The tower at 215 W. 57th St. is being designed by Adrian Smith, architect of the Burj Khalifa, the 2,717-foot Dubai tower that is the world’s tallest.

Only the first 20 stories of the new tower — which will include the city’s first Nordstrom’s — were unveiled Tuesday by author Michael Gross on his blog.

Extell wants to build another towering infernal, as part of what appears to be a game of mine's-bigger-than-yours,” Gross said.

Earlier in the day, JDS Properties presented plans to the Landmarks Commission for its own skinny super-scraper on the block, a 1,350-footer at 107 W.t 57th St., near Sixth Ave. That would be as tall as the Empire State Building. The project incorporates the old Steinway headquarters as well.

The commission expressed approval for the project but did not vote on it.

These three are not alone in reshaping the 57th St.t skyline.

Developer Henry Macklowe, who once demolished a Times Square building in the middle of the night, is currently erecting 432 Park Ave. At 1,397 feet, it would top both the Empire State Building and the World Trade tower, minus the spire.

A boom in international condo buyers is fueling much of this speculative development along 57th St. These globetrotters crave a midtown location with easy access to businesses and shops, along with unrivaled views of Central Park and the rest of the city.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...er2n-3-web.jpg

mistermetAJ Oct 2, 2013 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 (Post 6287176)


Fantastic renders. Awful design. Adrian Smith is an enemy to NY. This is worse than any Chicago proposal he ever came up with. I find it hard to believe that an architect has so little taste.

If this mess is due to Nordstroms request for core placement then I hope this building gets rejected and chopped down to just the store, which was the only redeemable part of the design. Everything else is clunky and forced. This is bad architecture.

ILNY Oct 2, 2013 1:16 PM

^ If the renders above are accurate, this design is a failure. There is too much clutter at the bottom part of the tower.

Busy Bee Oct 2, 2013 1:42 PM

What an overwrought mess. I hope this gets sent back to the drawing board.

hunser Oct 2, 2013 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6287178)
New 1,550-foot tower at 215 W. 57th St. will be the tallest building in New York City other than 1 World Trade Center, and tallest if you don't count 1 WTC's 400-foot spire

The 1,350-foot tower at 107 W. 57th St. would be as tall as the Empire State Building,

217W57th will be 1,423'10'', not 1,550'. And 111W57th will be taller than the ESB, by 100 feet.

For now, the current design / massing is a disgrace. Here's hope to better renderings.

Crawford Oct 2, 2013 2:06 PM

I'm still trying to understand what people are reacting to.

The only renders we have are from the tower base. The building outline from SSC is obviously just a massing model. You can't tell a thing about how the building will actually look like.

To me, the tower base looks pretty good. Not spectacular, but definitely good. I will reserve comment on the building itself until we see renderings.

Also, with the development of 107 and 225, I can say that W. 57 DEFINITELY needs a signature tower that both breaks through the general plateau and probably ends in a spire.

Maybe that Solow site, on the south side of 57th near 5th, will be the signature tower. The other possibility would be the Durst site on the south side of 57th near 6th.

Also, the fact that they're moving the bulk of 225 to one side is a VERY good sign for 220 CPS. I expect no less that a supertall from Vornado, esp. now that Extell has basically rearranged 225 W 57 to accommodate 220 CPS.

antinimby Oct 2, 2013 2:13 PM

^ People, including myself, are reacting to the parts that have been revealed and the parts that have been revealed do look like a jumbled mess.

Let's hope and pray the LPC intervenes (kinda like what the NYPD did for the "Freedom Tower") and forces an overhaul/redesign. This could turn out to be a permanent eyesore considering its gargantuan size.

Crawford Oct 2, 2013 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6287264)
^ People, including myself, are reacting to the parts that have been revealed and the parts that have been revealed do look like a jumbled mess.

The base is what people are reacting to? I thought it was that SSC massing. All the comments I see are people complaining about a "box", when we don't even know what it looks like.

I don't understand why the base is so offensive. In any case, I doubt the LPC would force a redesign. I don't even think that's in their purview. They just review to see if it isn't somehow harming adjacent landmarked structures.

mistermetAJ Oct 2, 2013 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6287261)
I'm still trying to understand what people are reacting to.

The only renders we have are from the tower base. The building outline from SSC is obviously just a massing model. You can't tell a thing about how the building will actually look like.

To me, the tower base looks pretty good. Not spectacular, but definitely good. I will reserve comment on the building itself until we see renderings.

Also, with the development of 107 and 225, I can say that W. 57 DEFINITELY needs a signature tower that both breaks through the general plateau and probably ends in a spire.

Maybe that Solow site, on the south side of 57th near 5th, will be the signature tower. The other possibility would be the Durst site on the south side of 57th near 6th.

Also, the fact that they're moving the bulk of 225 to one side is a VERY good sign for 220 CPS. I expect no less that a supertall from Vornado, esp. now that Extell has basically rearranged 225 W 57 to accommodate 220 CPS.

The base looks fine. However, it's the awkward cantilever and horrendous rectangular tower portion that has everyone bent out of shape. If this really is just massing, I can live with the cantilever (won't be able to tell from far away anyway) as long as the tower portion ends with a pointed top or decorative crown (not just lighting the top of a box).

That being said, this building as rendered has committed too many architectural sins. Horrible massing, plain skin, poor interaction with a historic neighbor, and skyline killing box top. Oh, and it will be the tallest building in New York. :dead:

Onn Oct 2, 2013 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6287044)
Trump Tower is awful. No texture, all glass, and no creativity. Pretty bland with the exception of the set backs.

However, Trump Tower is miles and miles better than this mess proposed by Adrian Smith. This thing is beyond offensive to the skyline. Its an atrocity. It is completely out of context with its surroundings in form. Yet its break away from conformity doesnt even have a hint of creativity, but is merely a box stacked awkwardly on a box.

Totally totally disagree on Trump Tower! It's a beautiful building, you really have to see it in person if you don't believe. Best new US skyscraper of the last 20 years, at least. New York hasn't put out anything better.

And I think people are overreacting, we still haven't seen real renderings. Adrian Smith isn't going to let you down that much, he never does. If people are bothered by what they are seeing now they should be just as bothered by 432 Park (which they're not.) Something better could go there, but I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate with a better design. The boxy design may be to maximize interior space. If they want big floor plates they would have to go with a box design. If this was the final design I don't it would be as bad as people think.

mistermetAJ Oct 2, 2013 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6287285)
Totally (1) totally disagree on Trump Tower! It's a beautiful building, you really have to see it in person if you don't believe. Best new US skyscraper of the last 20 years, at least. New York hasn't put out anything better.

(2) And I think people are overreacting, we still haven't seen real renderings. Adrian Smith isn't going to let you down that much, he never does. If people are bothered by what they are seeing now they should be just as bothered by 432 Park (which they're not.) Something better could go there, but I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate with a better design. The boxy design may be to maximize interior space. If they want big floor plates they would have to go with a box. If this was the final design I don't it would be as bad as people think.

(1) Maybe I do need to see it in person. All the pictures I have seen have left me unimpressed, but there are many buildings that look much better in person than they do in photos.

(2) Many people (such as myself) are perturbed by 432 Park. But at least it uses concrete and a grid to decorate the boxiness. Something about it almost feels awe inspiring even though it leaves you with a sense of disappointment. However, if what we truly get with 225 W57th st is a tall box made of glass with no texture, it will be MUCH worse than 432 Park. I understand maximizing floor space, but just because they were forced into the design doesn't mean it's still not bad architecture.

pico44 Oct 2, 2013 2:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6287285)
Totally totally disagree on Trump Tower! It's a beautiful building, you really have to see it in person if you don't believe. Best new US skyscraper of the last 20 years, at least. New York hasn't put out anything better.


What the heck are you talking about? Trump Tower is simply not a good skyscraper. Now one clunker doesn't necessarily make Smith a bad architect. I'd say, looking over all of his work, that he's decent-to-good. This whole "best skyscraper in 20 years" is insane.

I actually do agree with you in that we need to see more renderings and materials before we should panic, but it ain't looking good thus far.

pico44 Oct 2, 2013 3:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6287293)
(1) Maybe I do need to see it in person. All the pictures I have seen have left me unimpressed, but there are many buildings that look much better in person than they do in photos.

(2) Many people (such as myself) are perturbed by 432 Park. But at least it uses concrete and a grid to decorate the boxiness. Something about it almost feels awe inspiring even though it leaves you with a sense of disappointment. However, if what we truly get with 225 W57th st is a tall box made of glass with no texture, it will be MUCH worse than 432 Park. I understand maximizing floor space, but just because they were forced into the design doesn't mean it's still not bad architecture.


I've seen it several times in person and your impression is just about spot-on. I wouldn't say it's ugly, but just, "blah". Maybe it's just me, but I don't think 1400 foot skyscrapers should be monuments of "blah". Mr. Smith obviously disagrees.

TREPYE Oct 2, 2013 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6287285)
Totally totally disagree on Trump Tower! It's a beautiful building, you really have to see it in person if you don't believe. Best new US skyscraper of the last 20 years, at least. New York hasn't put out anything better.

I can think of 10 towers that have been built since that are represent arcihtecture in a much, much more progressive fashion that erecting a thin black rectangle. Best tower in the last 20 years: NYTimes tower, Hearst Tower close behind.

Trump is a massing excersize, like 432 Park Ave, that exhibits the absolute minimun the human imagination can offer; a rectangle. Hopefully this tower isnt another massing excersize that depreciates our human capacity for imagination.

Onn Oct 2, 2013 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6287310)
What the heck are you talking about? Trump Tower is simply not a good skyscraper. Now one clunker doesn't necessarily make Smith a bad architect. I'd say, looking over all of his work, that he's decent-to-good. This whole "best skyscraper in 20 years" is insane.

Trump Tower is absolutely the best US skyscraper of the last 20 years, what else would trump it? I didn't see anything else that came close. It's very hard to argue it wasn't a good design. The setbacks, unique lot, glass, spire, a great base...

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...00907-006a.jpg
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...00907-006a.jpg

michaelbwelch
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6155/6...08cb3bbb_b.jpg

599GTO Oct 2, 2013 3:10 PM

Trump Tower is quite unattractive and One World Trade Center is miles above it, design wise. The top is especially hideous. Not sure why you think that building is the best tower erected in the past 20 years?

Onn Oct 2, 2013 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO (Post 6287351)
Trump Tower is quite ugly one World Trade Center is miles above it, design wise. The top is especially hideous. Not sure why you think that building is the best tower erected in the past 20 years?

1WTC is not completed yet. I said last 20 years. But I guess it's always open to opinion.

Blaze23 Oct 2, 2013 3:13 PM

Trump Chicago being the best US skyscraper in that last 20 years must be the joke of the century, the fact that you're the only one even liking it on this forum says it all. Ever seen NY by Ghery or the Hearst Tower, you can keep that AS&GH crap in chicago.
Back to the topic, my initial reaction was utter disgust, and the very well written article in NY YIMBY confirmed that the massing is quite accurate so that helped reinforce it; but the article on the Dailynews gives me hope, as it insinuates that the part that we're most upset about, that totally out of context cantilever box on top of what is actually a promising base, might not be the final product. So let's wait for the final renderings before making a final judgement.

http://www.yimbynews.com/2013/10/the...-street.html/1

pico44 Oct 2, 2013 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6287341)
Trump Tower is absolutely the best US skyscraper of the last 20 years, what else would trump it? I didn't see anything else that came close.

]



Hahahahhahaaaa

You keep saying it, as if you can make it true through sheer will and stubbornness.

TouchTheSky13 Oct 2, 2013 4:04 PM

I seriously doubt that this is the final design for the tower. There is no way any architect or developer would seriously consider building something that shitty and that tall. I'm betting that what is in the rendering is just a massing that explains how the cantilever will work and how the base will look. The base for Nordtrom's is so incoherent with the rest of the tower, which leads me to believe that this is not final. Can anyone confirm this?


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:45 AM.

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