SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT

Viewing Page 88 of 407

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)

- - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

New York YIMBY:

217 West 57th Street
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON JANUARY 24TH 2014 AT 12:00 PM

Quote:

Overhead shots of work at 217 West 57th Street and 220 Central Park South reveal major progress; digging for Extell’s Nordstrom Tower continues at a rapid pace.
...

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...1/IMG_5173.jpg

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...1/IMG_3049.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6415389)

That's like saying one building is taller than another because you will only see it from a certain angle most of the time. To be fully appreciated, you need to be up close to the building, as other towers tend to block the views of skyscrapers in Manhattan, even some of the tallest. With the Tower Verre, for example, it's not just the top of the building you want to see. New York is known for its street level activity, and how this building meets the street is very important. It's the face of the building most people who visit the tower will see, and obviously enter. The base of the Freedom Tower is mocked often because of it's "bunker-like" design, even though it's not the base you see on the skyline (that's another story). But even that building is excused to a certain degree. A tower on a busy street in Midtown? They need to get it right.

"That's like saying one building is taller than another because you will only see it from a certain angle most of the time" Umm, it isn't like that at all and that silly statement has nothing to do with what I was saying. Anyway, your counter examples are the best proposal in North America (I guess you are right, this design really can't compete with that) and a building that has a highly visible base because it stands apart from everything around it. This building will be squished between existing towers. I also think the massing of a building 30 meters up (where the first change in mass occurs) has little to do with street level activity. At the street it is all about materials and maintaining the street wall. Plus, there are tons and tons of Manhattan towers with very odd low level massing due to zoning. Buildings like 277 Park Avenue, Credit Lyonnais Building, Sperry & Hutchinson Building, Sterling Drug Company Building, 60 Broad Street, 1740 Broadway, 1407 Broadway, 80 Pine Street, 1065 Avenue of the Americas, Grolier Building, 425 Park Avenue and the Lorillard Building to name a few. No one complains about the odd massing of these because the stranger parts are surrounded by other buildings and never really seen. Sure, looking at it in a diagram, like it was gonna be out alone in a field, it looks a little awkward, but I think in the urban fabric it will be great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6430601)

Umm, it isn't like that at all and that silly statement has nothing to do with what I was saying. Anyway, your counter examples are the best proposal in North America (I guess you are right, this design really can't compete with that) and a building that has a highly visible base because it stands apart from everything around it.

It has everything to do with your statement. To suggest that we should only appreciate the towers or portions of them that are visible on the skyline isn't saying mch.

Quote:

This building will be squished between existing towers. I also think the massing of a building 30 meters up (where the first change in mass occurs) has little to do with street level activity. At the street it is all about materials and maintaining the street wall.

The tower will be view from street level as well as from a distance on the skyline. On the skyline, it will be part of an ensemble, judged as a part of a whole. The most important view, from which most people will associate with and see it (either from shopping there or the relative few who will live there, or just the average pedestrian) matters more to the individual building. One57 is an example of a tower that blends into the street well.

So far, from what we have seen, this tower doesn't mesh at all. Admittedly, we haven't seen much, but what we've seen so far is a mess. The various levels and cantilevers don't help to create a cohesive experience.

Quote:

Plus, there are tons and tons of Manhattan towers with very odd low level massing due to zoning. Buildings like 277 Park Avenue, Credit Lyonnais Building, Sperry & Hutchinson Building, Sterling Drug Company Building, 60 Broad Street, 1740 Broadway, 1407 Broadway, 80 Pine Street, 1065 Avenue of the Americas, Grolier Building, 425 Park Avenue and the Lorillard Building to name a few. No one complains about the odd massing of these because the stranger parts are surrounded by other buildings and never really seen. Sure, looking at it in a diagram, like it was gonna be out alone in a field, it looks a little awkward, but I think in the urban fabric it will be great.

Those buildings you mentioned aren't "odd", they have a cohesive mass that fits - from street level to the top. Nothing I have seen here so far demonstrates that. Obviously its still a work in progress, but the bottom line is, it is a little ridiculous to suggests those things don't matter, especially in a tower this high profile. I should be able to look up at a skyscraper, and know it's extended from the very ground I stand, visually most importantly.

"Those buildings you mentioned aren't "odd", they have a cohesive mass that fits - from street level to the top. Nothing I have seen here so far demonstrates that."

They are odd, They are ziggurats with post modern boxes stacked on top. A strange transition in mass from the era of art deco to the clean massing of the international style. If you think having a bottom and top that have nothing to do with each other is cohesive mass then I guess we are too far apart to come to any sort of agreement on what is and isn't awkward massing and when awkward massing is and isn't really an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6431318)

They are odd, They are ziggurats with post modern boxes stacked on top. A strange transition in mass from the era of art deco to the clean massing of the international style. If you think having a bottom and top that have nothing to do with each other is cohesive mass then I guess we are too far apart to come to any sort of agreement on what is and isn't awkward massing and when awkward massing is and isn't really an issue.

Well, let's just skip over all of that. We have other news to discuss. I thought this was voted on already.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/02/art-stu...building-plan/

Art Students League revolts over building plan

http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com...0&h=480&crop=1

By Isabel Vincent
February 2, 2014

Quote:

It’s a lot of money — and a big chunk of skyscraper — to dangle over a historic Manhattan art school.

The Art Students League in Midtown is pushing its members to approve a $31.8 million deal with Extell that would allow part of a new 1,400-foot luxury tower (right) to be cantilevered over its West 57th Street building.

One mailing to members threatens that if they vote no, “We get Zilch! And a taller building next door.”

Not all league members are quick to jump on the cash, and some have formed a coalition to oppose the deal.

“It’s an enormous tower and a third of it is going to be hanging in the air above our building if the deal goes through,” said Richard Caraballo, a member who is leading the charge.

“Aesthetically, it’s the worst thing that came down the pike since Penn Station,” said Beth Kurtz, a lifetime member.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-9101655.html

New York art school hopes controversial £19m deal with developers of Extell Building will safeguard its existence for generations

http://www.independent.co.uk/incomin.../p31towers.jpg

Mark McSherry
02 February 2014

Quote:

The Art Students League of New York art school has led a charmed and magical life – it is a modest 1892 architectural jewel for working artists amid the soaring corporate skyscrapers of midtown Manhattan.

The League has nurtured many famous artists including Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Georgia O'Keeffe, Norman Rockwell, George Bellows, Cy Twombly, George Grosz and Roy Lichtenstein. And in a city where a studio can cost thousands of dollars a month in rent, artists can work at the League for a fraction of that cost and have access to models, space and teachers.

It is, in short, an artist's dream: affordable studio space and classes coupled with unrivalled camaraderie and membership of an institution with an international reputation just steps from Central Park.

However, all is not well at the League, and it is the institution's location – in the middle of some of the world's most expensive property – that is causing discord. The League's brownstone base in 57th Street is just a few storeys high, and is protected by New York's landmark preservation regulations. But what is built around it is another matter.

There are plans to erect one of the tallest buildings in the world next door, which will make the Art Students League look like a Victorian doll's house. At 1,423ft, (433.7m) the Extell Building will be taller than the Empire State Building and just 60ft shorter than the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The League hopes to pocket $31.8m (£19.3m) from the Extell developers in return for allowing them to add a huge cantilever of apartments that would stick out 30ft to the side of their tower and hang over the League from 30 storeys above.

The League calls the deal a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" that will safeguard its existence for generations, allowing it to keep tuition fees low, improve and modernise. However, a growing number of League members are trying to delay the 12 February vote on the deal. They claim that the League is rushing members into something they may regret. Sceptics want more time to weigh up the proposals and consider any possible danger to the League's building or its members during the five-year building period and after the tower is completed.

"The blind faith in our board from some of the members I've known for years is maybe the most maddening aspect of this," said Robert Holden, a League life member. "Our cherished old studio building... is falling apart. Wait till Extell starts blasting."

However, some League instructors and members have already voted for the deal. "The financial benefits from this agreement will preserve the League and its traditions," wrote board president Salvatore Barbieri and executive director Ira Goldberg in a 46-page glossy brochure urging members to "Vote Yes For 31.8 Million Dollars".

League members cannot stop the tower going up, but they could block the overhanging cantilever or force more analysis of the plan. "The League is too beautiful and too venerable to be messed with like this," said member Beth Karts. "Some things in this world, like the League, are worth a lot more than money."

Here's that ad again...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153984934/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153984937/original.jpg

:previous: That's allot of money on the table and I applaud those members who votes "YES" !! :tup:

I would vote no. Extell would make the building prettier along with being taller if I did have the chance to vote no..........

To compare this to the demolition of Penn Station is a bit out of proportion.

Anyway, for Skyscrapers fan it is a win win situation. If they vote no, the tower will be taller, if they vote yes, the design will be more original.

As for the tower in itself, if they stick with that design, it is not bad at all. If you like 432 park, it is, according to me, a more modern version of it. Now that I have started to appreciate Vinoly's tower, I like this one even more.

I hope they vote no so Extell has to redesign this beast.

So do I but with all that money at stake, I doubt it'll happen.

Keeping tuition low is always important for a school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6433603)

Keeping tuition low is always important for a school.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...Ha...ahem, excuse me.

This has not been my experience with higher education. Perhaps you were being sarcastic though. It can be very hard to tell on an internet forum.

If someone offered me millions to build over my head, I'd take the money.
Oh heck, I'd offer my real-estate (for a higher price) so they can build even taller while I'm spending my millions on a condo on W. 57th !! :D

Yea school is never cheap. Let's hope they're wise enough not to take the money though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6433738)

Your telling me. Rutgers just keeps raising their fees and no improvements at all. :hell: Eh, I mean I think for some schools it but yea for some, not at all. More money, more campus fees, higher PC fee's, it goes on and on. Plus half the professors are shit and can't teach, and have heavy ass accents. Horrible :slob: .
Essentially, you have to just pick up the book, and teach yourself. Its better that way. :)

:previous: Which ground level is better, 225 W 57th or Citigroup Center? :shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6433755)

:previous: Which ground level is better, 225 W 57th or Citigroup Center? :shrug:

Citigroup. Its like a gold standard for architecture. Revolutionary at its time, and still is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6433758)

Citigroup. Its like a gold standard for architecture. Revolutionary at its time, and still is.

Yeh, but the corners hang over the sidewalk. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6433758)

Citigroup. Its like a gold standard for architecture. Revolutionary at its time, and still is.

Yes, still is. It's one of my favorite tower in NYC. If it were planned today, it would still look ahead of its time. It is quite incredible when you think it was built 40 years ago.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-F...Building_5.jpg
Source Zimbio

As for Nordstrom, it is not a bad design at all. Although it is debatable, I think it will have a very impressive impact both at street level and on the skyline.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q...-rendering.jpg
Source The architects Newspaper

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6433510)

:previous: That's allot of money on the table and I applaud those members who votes "YES" !! :tup:

I think in the end, the majority will go for the money. They will consider that it's better to get something out of the deal, at least for the school, since the tower is going to be built anyway. I wish they would vote against it, but I would be surprised if that happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6433836)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-F...Building_5.jpg

Great example of a tower that rises above its space. Now, shift the main portion of the tower to the left, and you see the disconnect it would have.

Viewing Page 88 of 407