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)

tokilamockingbrd Apr 27, 2016 8:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIGGLEWORTH (Post 7422139)
True. I hope to god that Nordstrom joins it in the spire department.

I am more of a roof height guy. Spire pad the stat sheet but when I look at a skyline its the rooftops that make the impression.

Now crowns I can dig. They definitely add alot to the overall impression a tower gives me.

NYCrules Apr 27, 2016 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7403296)
That's just the case in particular with a lot of Extell developments. Remember, Barnett was already into construction at his "80 story" Manhattan Plaza development downtown, and was forced to put up a rendering by the DOB after complaints of not having one.

Wow, never heard of that one! But i imagine it must have broken his heart to step away from his established norms :haha:

Vortex11 Apr 27, 2016 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokilamockingbrd (Post 7422150)
I am more of a roof height guy. Spire pad the stat sheet but when I look at a skyline its the rooftops that make the impression.

Now crowns I can dig. They definitely add a lot to the overall impression a tower gives me.

I completely agree with you. Rooftops are what define the skyline from both near and far. From afar, a skyline can appear as an artificial mountain with it's own hills and valleys. Up close, you can stare up at each prominent peak in awe. Spires are cool and add some variety, but they do not contribute to the grandeur in the same way. Also, it is much easier to appreciate just how massive a building is when looking up to it's roof. Staring up to the tip of the spire is much more difficult to appreciate the height.

gramsjdg Apr 27, 2016 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIGGLEWORTH (Post 7422139)
True. I hope to god that Nordstrom joins it in the spire department.

Agreed. I'll take every extra foot of roof height they give this, but it really needs that spire. The renderings look seriously underwhelming without it.

Another side benefit to the spire at this point would be an overall height of 1850' to 1869' based on the size of the spire as originally proposed for the 1478' version...

JACKinBeantown Apr 27, 2016 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7421275)
I don't think it's that tall yet. Maybe close. But looking at it, I get the impression that this is what 111 West 57th Street will look like when it begins to rise higher.

That's an exciting (and scary) thought.

WIGGLEWORTH Apr 27, 2016 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7422443)
Agreed. I'll take every extra foot of roof height they give this, but it really needs that spire. The renderings look seriously underwhelming without it.

Another side benefit to the spire at this point would be an overall height of 1850' to 1869' based on the size of the spire as originally proposed for the 1478' version...

Exactly. Much like the rest of you, I prefer roof height. But... The spire adds a nice touch from afar.

NYguy Apr 27, 2016 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokilamockingbrd (Post 7422150)
I am more of a roof height guy. Spire pad the stat sheet but when I look at a skyline its the rooftops that make the impression.

Now crowns I can dig. They definitely add alot to the overall impression a tower gives me.

I think he was talking more in terms of how the tower appears on the city's skyline, not height. And I believe he is right. The tallest building in NY should always have a glorious spire or distinctive top. That's the main thing that bothers me about this one. Even One Vanderbilt won't top this one.

WIGGLEWORTH Apr 27, 2016 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7422755)
I think he was talking more in terms of how the tower appears on the city's skyline, not height. And I believe he is right. The tallest building in NY should always have a glorious spire or distinctive top. That's the main thing that bothers me about this one. Even One Vanderbilt won't top this one.

Good to see that you understand me NYguy. But yes. It will be the king no matter what... now if it will be a worthy one? I dont know.

tokilamockingbrd Apr 27, 2016 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIGGLEWORTH (Post 7422876)
Good to see that you understand me NYguy. But yes. It will be the king no matter what... now if it will be a worthy one? I dont know.

I do agree with this. The highest tower in a general area should have a spire. Some towers that are now "blending" into the skyline like Chrysler get to keep theirs just because it would be wrong for it not to have one.

I think towers like BoA are the ones I was referring. BoA is listed at 1200 feet because of its spire. Its highest occupied floor is only 769 feet and then it has a large crown also. You can call BoA a supertall to pad the city stats but when looking at it, it does not overwhelm like a supertall should.

gramsjdg Apr 27, 2016 10:17 PM

I'm a little concerned as to how the curtain wall is going to play out in terms of looks. This is one of the first curtain walls I have seen in a long time that actually has framing around each pane of glass (I'm going off the sample section as shown on Yimby's page) The trend over the last decade or so has been edge to edge glass with no framing when using curtain wall architecture...
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...-3-777x421.jpg

my favorite early render of this tower shows it with a frameless curtain wall design (below)...


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...539a251369.jpg

hunser Apr 27, 2016 11:05 PM

A roof height approaching 500m is quite serious. Spire or not, CPT will have a huge impact on the skyline. And it ain't that skinny either.

Vortex11 Apr 28, 2016 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 7423106)
A roof height approaching 500m is quite serious. Spire or not, CPT will have a huge impact on the skyline. And it ain't that skinny either.

Exactly, and with the 80' elevation boost, the top of this roof will sit 502 meters above sea level or 1649' feet.

punchydj Apr 28, 2016 5:28 PM

Hi guys!

There is the progress during the month of March.

Video Link


Thank you!!!

hunser Apr 28, 2016 5:31 PM

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...70622242&row=0

Quote:

Height and Elevation

Site Elevation: 82
Structure Height: 1792 (Proposed), 1567 (DNE), 1792 (DET)
Total Height (AMSL): 1874 (Proposed), 1649 (DNE), 1874 (DET)
Quote:

aglStructureHeight: Proposed total structure height above ground level in whole feet rounded to the next highest foot. The total structure height should include anything mounted on top of the structure such as antennas, lightning rods, obstruction lights, etc.

aglStructureHeightDet: FAA confirmed total structure height above ground level.

aglStructureHeightDne: Maximum height that a proposed structure’s total height above ground level can’t exceed in order to not exceed FAA obstruction standards.

tokilamockingbrd Apr 28, 2016 6:02 PM

hmm. so maybe that 1792 was leaked a while back, but Barnett hushed it because it wants it to be a suprise.

Forget the not breaking 1776 out of courtesy. 1 WTC's rooftop will be 200 feet lower than this ones, this one deserves to be referred to as number 1.

supertallchaser Apr 28, 2016 8:12 PM

i'm quite surprised this thread is not blowing up. A NEW TALLEST FOR THE U.S

Downburst Apr 28, 2016 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 7424031)

I hate to burst your bubble, but that form is for the crane that will be used in this project, not the building itself. Note the "Structure Summary" section on the right side of the form.

gramsjdg Apr 29, 2016 12:13 AM

The only reason I can think of a crane needing to be nearly 250 ft higher than the top of the building would be for the installation of a spire. 432's crane certainly wasn't at 1650 ft...

NYguy Apr 29, 2016 2:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokilamockingbrd (Post 7422962)
BoA is listed at 1200 feet because of its spire. Its highest occupied floor is only 769 feet and then it has a large crown also. You can call BoA a supertall to pad the city stats but when looking at it, it does not overwhelm like a supertall should.

It does. You just have to see it from the right spot. Also, it stands on the island of Manhattan. Put it in any other city lacking a supertall, or a massive amount of skyscrapers, and you'll see.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Downburst (Post 7424321)
I hate to burst your bubble, but that form is for the crane that will be used in this project, not the building itself. Note the "Structure Summary" section on the right side of the form.

Yeah, the highest figure for the tower itself is listed at 1,569 ft. Other corners of the tower are slightly lower, including the 1,551 ft figure. It was stated as the tower, and not the windwow washing equipment, which it has been for other towers.


https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...0925151&row=17

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/163083287/original.jpg

gramsjdg Apr 29, 2016 4:33 AM

At the very least, the tower crane document is a second confirmation of the 1569 ft roof/parapet height...:yes:


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:16 PM.

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