SkyscraperPage Forum

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)

punchydj Nov 7, 2015 10:37 AM

Construction update October 2015
 
Hi Guys!

There is a construction update of the month of October:

Video Link



Thank you!!

hawainpanda Nov 7, 2015 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7225330)
The spire would certainly make it stand out from the others because they don't have one. But placing a spire on top of a building that wasn't designed to have one does more to hurt the skyline than help it. The days of an Empire-State-like dominance over the New York skyline are over. It's the age of the supertall. You will have serveral towers that dominate the mass that is the New York skyline. How much preeminence they take over each other will depend on which angle you are viewing the skyline from.

Its ture that ESB dominance is over, but that building will still be one of the most visible buildings in manhattan given its massing even at the top, most of the current super talls have very small floor plates, and the fact that ESB is surrounded by much shorter buildings

Crawford Nov 7, 2015 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7225281)
I'm not sold on "value engineering the spire out"

I don't think there's any such claim. Maybe on SSP some speculate this is the case, but doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. Spires don't cost a lot, this is fiendishly expensive tower where ornamental costs are not even a rounding error, and Extell doesn't skimp anyways.

Crawford Nov 7, 2015 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawainpanda (Post 7227096)
Its ture that ESB dominance is over, but that building will still be one of the most visible buildings in manhattan given its massing even at the top, most of the current super talls have very small floor plates, and the fact that ESB is surrounded by much shorter buildings

Historically, yes, in the next few years, no. There are supertalls planned/uc very close to ESB, and with similar sized floorplates. From most angles, ESB will be somewhat diminished. Certainly from the west it is already diminished.

chris08876 Nov 7, 2015 4:34 PM

Towers like 15 Penn could block the ESB at certain angles and it would be pretty dominant given its bulk. It will be built eventually or something at least on the 7th Avenue location. Vornado also has a big assemblage nearby Penn, and with the recent purchases of other parcels in the vicinity. One of the assemblages on the southeast (7th and 34th) can give rise to a super tall. Hopefully the one on 261 West 34th can be a large one as well. In essence, a lot of those low rises will be demolished in the future near MSG.

But even the HY towers and Manhattan West will help shrink the dominance that the ESB has. At least in terms of certain angles when viewing the skyline. So we potentially have 3 towers all near 34th and 7th which may rise. All promise to be big for the area.

The ESB has the advantage of the spire and antenna (which feels like its part of the spire portion in terms of raising its height). Its 1454 ft height due to this is hard to challenge. Add the extra 47 feet ASL and its appears 1500'.

NYguy Nov 10, 2015 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by artspook (Post 7225508)
"placing a spire on top of a building that wasn't designed to have one
. . does more to hurt the skyline than help it." . . - NYguy . .

Huh? . . It's incomprehensible how this excellent spire could in any way hurt our skyline


It could hurt our skyline because our tallest spires should look like our tallest spires, not just something placed on random towers and called spires (even if they are by definition spires). Buildings like the Chrysler, Empire State, Woolworth, those were buildings worthy of spires that crowned the skyline of skylines. That pole on top of this one, while better than the mast on top of the Freedom Tower, really looked like an afterthought. And for good reason that earlier massings of this tower showed no spire.

artspook Nov 10, 2015 10:24 AM

NYguy . . I hate disagreeing with you on this . . really . .
not 'cause you're so popular and people will "hate" me . .
but 'cause I agree with you on most everything else . .

You mentioned very early on that you think NYC spires shouldn't be asymmetrical . .
I think that's the reason you see this as just an afterthought pole on a random tower . .
rather than a sculptural form completing a bland tower in desperate need of culmination

I thought the buildings's earlier "massings" . . as well as this latest version . .
lump without a spire . . as going nowhere - doing nothing . . "placeholder" dull . .
When the "worthier" version with the spire came out . . I was blown away ! . .
Now THAT - I thought - has a look! . . the city's tallest now has acumen. .

. . spire - antenna - vertcal emblem - aerial - stick - crown - lofty temple -
what have you . . I don't care about definitions . . Is it essential? . . proportional? . .
Yes & Yes. . Some building designs need something up there . . many don't . .
I think the spire on the NYT building looks gratuitous . . Bofa about the same . .
and get a load of 320 Park Ave.'s appalling twisty thing . . We don't need many spires.

But I've always wanted a tall moderne tower with an asymmetrical spire in Manhattan.
for the "romantic" big-city Gothic look of it . . resembling a "Metropolis"-like tower . .
where you could imagine superman flying around it . . like in the comic books . .
and in deco urban-fantasy art prints . . The concept of the timeless asymmetrical spire
. . is validated by these retro moderne art genres . .
Talented 40's illustrators had an awe of - a vision of - a respect for . .
the Big City Aesthetic that was New York . .
transcending the typical unscrupulous real-estate developer's urban viewpoint . .
(aside from Hines & a few others) . .

So you don't like this spire . . I can't change your mind . .
But take another look at the July 4th techtalkguy post . .
an up close view of CPT spire . . notice its 45 degree angle to the structure . .
the deco-ish style . . . setbacks in the spire itself . . that read well from a distance . .
the soaring vibe the ornament lends to the overall architectural expression . .
I strongly prefer it . . I've defended it . . so that's it. thanks.

BrandonJXN Nov 10, 2015 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7229812)
It could hurt our skyline because our tallest spires should look like our tallest spires, not just something placed on random towers and called spires (even if they are by definition spires). Buildings like the Chrysler, Empire State, Woolworth, those were buildings worthy of spires that crowned the skyline of skylines. That pole on top of this one, while better than the mast on top of the Freedom Tower, really looked like an afterthought. And for good reason that earlier massings of this tower showed no spire.

Kinda disagree with that. While far from being an ugly building, the spire on Nordstrom added a little extra to a building that is essentially a cantilevered box. Really wish they would've kept it. But it's gone and while not the end of the world, it does suck a bit.



Though designs are subject to change even in the middle of construction. So I wouldn't rule out some alterations to Norstrom at some point.

Foosh Nov 10, 2015 3:32 PM

I'm on the fence about Central Park towers spire. I believe this tower could use a spire but not necessarily this one proposed. I believe in true spires and crowns such as the old classics like ESB, Chrysler...also the new towers, 340 Flatbush in Brooklyn by SHoP architects and Foster+Partners refresh of 425 Park avenue.:):)

TechTalkGuy Nov 10, 2015 5:08 PM

I am glad that we are having this discussion because it is a HOT topic that has many of us defending our opinions here on SkyscraperPage for many years and many generations of skyscrapers.

Lord Foster has some very interesting designs.
I have always wanted some ornamental spire atop of the Hearst Tower, but we did not get anything whatsoever.

The 3 spires atop of 425 Park speak for itself and many of us seem to agree, it's a great design that really does well.

Lord Foster has another tower in Philadelphia with only one spire for the Comcast Innovation & Technology Center that has forumers debating this very subject.

It is a subject that will never escape us.

Personally, I have a tremendous amount of respect for everyone who shares their opinions on this subject.

NYguy is an exceptional individual who posts more than anyone that I know of and is also our host moderator.

His opinions do carry weight, but is only one of many.

When our voices are spoken, please understand that it's okay to disagree.
An ornamental spire is like art.
Art is subjective to personal opinion.

Cheers! :cheers:

Elevator1 Nov 10, 2015 8:03 PM

Well stated TechTalkGuy. Thank you. I was on the fence about the spire when I first saw it but I definitely thought something was missing when it was removed. This looks incomplete. Too bland at the top for a building of this stature. Something is needed. Bring back the spire.

chris08876 Nov 10, 2015 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 7230310)
I am glad that we are having this discussion because it is a HOT topic that has many of us defending our opinions here on SkyscraperPage for many years and many generations of skyscrapers.

Lord Foster has some very interesting designs.
I have always wanted some ornamental spire atop of the Hearst Tower, but we did not get anything whatsoever.

The 3 spires atop of 425 Park speak for itself and many of us seem to agree, it's a great design that really does well.

Lord Foster has another tower in Philadelphia with only one spire for the Comcast Innovation & Technology Center that has forumers debating this very subject.

It is a subject that will never escape us.

Personally, I have a tremendous amount of respect for everyone who shares their opinions on this subject.

NYguy is an exceptional individual who posts more than anyone that I know of and is also our host moderator.

His opinions do carry weight, but is only one of many.

When our voices are spoken, please understand that it's okay to disagree.
An ornamental spire is like art.
Art is subjective to personal opinion.

Cheers! :cheers:

I think you should be the ssp motivation speaker. :D

http://media2.giphy.com/media/D6jA50m3Rc5ws/giphy.gif

Its a great time we are in when it comes to real estate and city growth. :cheers:

Incredible to think that 6 years ago such was not the case in terms of magnitude. Cities like NYC are adding over 10% in terms of high rise stock, cities like Seattle, the great Miami-Dade region, most major Texan cities, Chicago, and especially SF are just booming. Even good old DC. We now also have high speed rail contruction and planning, and much much more in the pipeline for many cities regarding transportation, and various neighborhood improvements. May the boom continue, and may the real estate gods (Barnett, Shvo, Sileversteinn, Stern, CCCC China Construction, SHoP, ect.) punish those who wish the boom would end.

Amen

NYguy Nov 12, 2015 3:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by artspook (Post 7229979)
NYguy . . I hate disagreeing with you on this . . really . .
not 'cause you're so popular and people will "hate" me . .
but 'cause I agree with you on most everything else . .

You mentioned very early on that you think NYC spires shouldn't be asymmetrical . .
I think that's the reason you see this as just an afterthought pole on a random tower . .
rather than a sculptural form completing a bland tower in desperate need of culmination

You're wrong on a coupe of things from the start. First, I'm not so "popular, and I'm not against asymetrical spires (BoFA's spire is an example of an asymetrical spire).

And everyone has an opinion, and no we won't always agree. But about this tower being designed with a spire in mind, we just know that not to be the case. That is something that is
not even debatable. It's just a fact. The developer himself stated there wouldn't be. The early massings of the tower proved there wouldn't be. But a spire showed up later on regardless.
Now they're saying there won't be a spire, further proof that this tower did not need it, and was designed as a tower that did not need a spire. It was an afterthought,
with a pretty good effort to make it work. Now, even as I type this, there could be plans afoot to return the spire. We just don't know what that crazy Barnett will do.
But lets not fool ourselves about this tower and the spire. I know I won't.



http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot.com/

BRANDON NAGLE



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nD9gstuPgj...0/IMG_4518.JPG

chris08876 Nov 13, 2015 3:22 AM

Image from JR/RW

http://standard-discourseorg.netdna-..._1_666x500.jpg
Credit: http://www.yimbyforums.com/t/new-yor...floors/260/120

gramsjdg Nov 13, 2015 5:38 AM

The original proposal called for 1550 ft to the highest occupied floor and no spire, so we are still not quite there yet.

I would be fine with no spire if the mechanical floors and parapet extended a further 90' to 1640' (a nice round 500 meters).

Central Park Tower -if it is actually built without the spire- needs an extra 100 ft or so to really stand out beside Steinway; particularly as in its current form (sans spire) it stands to be seriously outclassed by that tower architecturally and its current 112' height advantage (1550 vs 1438) isn't enough to be very noticeable. 200' over Steinway with nice parapet lighting would go a long way towards making this the "signature tower" Barnett wants, unless he already has grander plans for another property in Manhattan...

CityGuy87 Nov 13, 2015 6:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7233721)
The original proposal called for 1550 ft to the highest occupied floor and no spire, so we are still not quite there yet.

I would be fine with no spire if the mechanical floors and parapet extended a further 90' to 1640' (a nice round 500 meters).

Central Park Tower -if it is actually built without the spire- needs an extra 100 ft or so to really stand out beside Steinway; particularly as in its current form (sans spire) it stands to be seriously outclassed by that tower architecturally and its current 112' height advantage (1550 vs 1438) isn't enough to be very noticeable. 200' over Steinway with nice parapet lighting would go a long way towards making this the "signature tower" Barnett wants, unless he already has grander plans for another property in Manhattan...

Well since One57 still hasn't lit its crown up at night like it does in its renders, I have some doubts that this one will be lit up as well. Maybe Barnett is waiting until all the billionaire towers are completed or something idk...

NYguy Nov 13, 2015 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7233721)
The original proposal called for 1550 ft to the highest occupied floor and no spire, so we are still not quite there yet.

I would be fine with no spire if the mechanical floors and parapet extended a further 90' to 1640' (a nice round 500 meters).

Central Park Tower -if it is actually built without the spire- needs an extra 100 ft or so to really stand out beside Steinway; particularly as in its current form (sans spire) it stands to be seriously outclassed by that tower architecturally and its current 112' height advantage (1550 vs 1438) isn't enough to be very noticeable. 200' over Steinway with nice parapet lighting would go a long way towards making this the "signature tower" Barnett wants, unless he already has grander plans for another property in Manhattan...


It'll stand out. An extra hundred foot or so isn't going to matter. Steinway's crown (or roof) is designed to function itself as a spire, so it's already a couple of hundred foot shorter using your logic. Barnett wants a tower that can "sell". His top units will be considerably higher than the top units at Steinway, even though at that height it doesn't really make a difference. I agree that the Steinway tower is a better designed building - at least from the outside. But as we know, the buyers are interested in much more than that. This building could have advantages we have NO idea of.

NYguy Nov 13, 2015 5:14 PM

http://gothamist.com/2015/11/09/shad...rk.php#photo-1

Shadow-Fearing Protesters Wield Umbrellas Against Midtown Skyscraper Development

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow85.JPG


BY SCOTT LYNCH
NOV 9, 2015



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow56.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow73.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow87.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow82.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow77.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as.../shadow109.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as.../shadow108.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow99.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow75.JPG




The REBY issued a report to fight the critics of the supertall towers going up in the city. It's a nice read, and here are a few grabs...


https://rebny.com/content/dam/rebny/..._of_Towers.pdf



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841831/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841832/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841833/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841834/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841835/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841836/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841837/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841838/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841839/original.jpg

dendenden Nov 13, 2015 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7234174)
http://gothamist.com/2015/11/09/shad...rk.php#photo-1

Shadow-Fearing Protesters Wield Umbrellas Against Midtown Skyscraper Development

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow85.JPG


BY SCOTT LYNCH
NOV 9, 2015



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow56.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow73.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow87.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow82.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow77.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as.../shadow109.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as.../shadow108.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow99.JPG



http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/as...e/shadow75.JPG




The REBY issued a report to fight the critics of the supertall towers going up in the city. It's a nice read, and here are a few grabs...


https://rebny.com/content/dam/rebny/..._of_Towers.pdf



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841831/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841832/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841833/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841834/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841835/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841836/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841837/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841838/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161841839/original.jpg

If someone who had no idea about this stuff asked one of the protesters, "what are you guys protesting?" and the answer was, "shadows" :uhh:

This is the finest example of first world problems I have ever known.

mrnyc Nov 13, 2015 8:00 PM

i think the setbacked spire was rather hilarious and i hope they bring it back. i mean, the tower has setbacks and so the spire had setbacks, get it? get it? :haha: :rolleyes:

all kidding side, i think so far as we can tell it looks great with or without a spire. unlike the wtc, it's kind of a non-issue with this building.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.