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)

mistermetAJ Oct 2, 2013 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13 (Post 6287414)
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?

Can't confirm, but fingers crossed that you are correct!:fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:

gramsjdg Oct 2, 2013 4:06 PM

Let's hope the massing for the tower portion is just that... It looks hideous in that render alongside one 57 and 432 Park. The bottom looks OK, and the cantilever is not bad. The glass box massing in that render looks so bad that it actually makes 432 Park look good (or better, anyway). :runaway:

King DenCity Oct 2, 2013 4:07 PM

^That could be the case. :/

TREPYE Oct 2, 2013 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13 (Post 6287414)
there is no way any architect or developer would seriously consider building something that shitty and that tall.

Oh yes they would... Based on 432 Park ave, its not only possible but very likely. With that in mind I fear the worst for this development.

JayPro Oct 2, 2013 5:32 PM

TouchTheSky raised whay I think should be a fair question:
Was last night's meeting dedicated *strictly* to the impact of the cantilever over the other building rather than an official releaase of the structure as a whole????
The ongoing discussion and the article from YIMBY lead me to believe that there was gonna be a complete revelation. But one thing always caught my notice from the start:
For an architectural firm that
A. stakes its reputation on oft-times cutting-edge designs, and
B. had its first chance to make its mark upon the greatest city on Earth, and knew full well the implications involved....
Why would they release a render that made the area above the cantilever look so plain?

It seems to me that some premature assumptions concerning the meeting's purpose might've been made. Again, was it to actually annouce the official release the whole design, or merely to discuss/argue over the impact of the cantilever? Either the online journal that announced the meeting date or some of the folks attending it might have been somewhat misiformed.

I just can't somehow accept the idea that a design firm that was called upon to "knock one out of the park" would just leave an entire 80% portion of a supposedly signature tower just blank and dull.

babybackribs2314 Oct 2, 2013 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6287562)
TouchTheSky raised whay I think should be a fair question:
Was last night's meeting dedicated *strictly* to the impact of the cantilever over the other building rather than an official releaase of the structure as a whole????
The ongoing discussion and the article from YIMBY lead me to believe that there was gonna be a complete revelation. But one thing always caught my notice from the start:
For an architectural firm that
A. stakes its reputation on oft-times cutting-edge designs, and
B. had its first chance to make its mark upon the greatest city on Earth, and knew full well the implications involved....
Why would they release a render that made the area above the cantilever look so plain?

It seems to me that some premature assumptions concerning the meeting's purpose might've been made. Again, was it to actually annouce the official release the whole design, or merely to discuss/argue over the impact of the cantilever? Either the online journal that announced the meeting date or some of the folks attending it might have been somewhat misiformed.

I just can't somehow accept the idea that a design firm that was called upon to "knock one out of the park" would just leave an entire 80% portion of a supposedly signature tower just blank and dull.

I think you need to re-analyze your points and come to the unfortunate realization that Extell is not obligated to produce an 'amazing' design that satisfies New Yorkers - and who knows, maybe Barnett actually likes this iteration.

Extell's responsibility is to drive profits, which is why we've seen the design evolve in this regard; the driving force behind profits on 57th Street are views, and it needs to cantilever over the ASL Building to take advantage of Central Park views that could otherwise be blocked by 220 CPS. That. Is. The. Only Reason.

And it's incredibly unfortunate this wasn't addressed AT AL at the Landmarks meeting last night. But given they already received approval for the cantilever at the meeting, I highly doubt this is a mock-up or anything but the final design; given they can easily build as-of-right and without the cantilever they need no approvals whatsoever, the potential for a re-design is there. However I don't think it's likely at this point. :(

fleonzo Oct 2, 2013 7:38 PM

I've been a member here for years and it amazes me that after the long wait for WTC 1 to be rebuilt we have had a string of Supertalls being built in NYC (how many cities in the U.S. are building 1,200+ towers right now much or less a half dozen?). This is a process....relax people and wait 'til the final versions (and designs) that "actually get built" are released. So far, WTC1, One57, and 432 have come out either close to or better than their initial renderings. You gotta give the people behind this a lot of credit. They are the ones who are risking capital and have devoted their lives to this. Relax....:notacrook:

JayPro Oct 2, 2013 8:56 PM

My attempts at respectful rebuttals, point by point, are italicized and boldfaced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6287687)
I think you need to re-analyze your points and come to the unfortunate realization that Extell is not obligated to produce an 'amazing' design that satisfies New Yorkers - and who knows, maybe Barnett actually likes this iteration.

I wasn't suggesting at all that Extell harbored any sense of urgency to produce a killer product. On the other hand, though why has every other project and proposal with their name on it caused everyone's jaws to drop to the floor?? I just felt that the firm chosen to work with Extell IMO should've seen their virgin excursion into NYC architecture as a chance to prove to Gotham *precisely* what they vaunt on their website.
Then again.......
The proven *fact* that their design for the *base* was IMO more thoroughly scrutinized than that for the rest of the structure wasn't at all lost on me in retrospect.


Extell's responsibility is to drive profits, which is why we've seen the design evolve in this regard; the driving force behind profits on 57th Street are views, and it needs to cantilever over the ASL Building to take advantage of Central Park views that could (Editor's emphasis; See my response below.) otherwise be blocked by 220 CPS. That. Is. The. Only Reason.

Let's put aside for a moment this 220 CPS proposal, which is just that: an idea whose status as a work in progress is a complete unknown.
If views of CP are what Extell depends upon to draw money, I would think that this brouhaha over the canteliver wouldn't even taken on the life of its own that it has, since *height* is where the "money" views usually---and in this instance definitely---are.
If I'm following your logic, then I'm not understanding why views of the Park from an elevation as low as the top of the cantilever should fetch so much appeal...again, never mind any consideration of a *potential* supertall whose details etc. are in the air, so to speak. Penthouse views from *this* tower will *at the very least* rival 432 Park. To me, *that's* where profit motive *really* kicks in. 220 CPS IMO will take care of itself; and there's no reason why the residential portion of this tower should be piggybacked to--or, for that matter, figuratively hijacked by--what amounts *right now* to a gleam in a developer's eye.


And it's incredibly unfortunate this wasn't addressed AT AL at the Landmarks meeting last night. But given they already received approval for the cantilever at the meeting, I highly doubt this is a mock-up or anything but the final design; given they can easily build as-of-right and without the cantilever they need no approvals whatsoever, the potential for a re-design is there. However I don't think it's likely at this point. :(

But here's the nub: What does the design of the rest of the tower from the cantilever up have to do with the cantilever itself??? Nearly all the conversation on this thread re the tower design since last night has been almost solely focused on the latter. Why, then, this urge on this thread to crucify the rest of the tower based on insufficient data? Was there *any substantive* discussion of the tower component's facade at the meeting?
Or the kind of glass or other mateirals used?
All I heard was that it was a box, whereupon the typically trigger-reflexed preconceived notions that are forever on display on this forum flew like bats out of Gehenna...without not even *one* true rendering having yet come out, even as I type this.
As I diligently followed the discussion here last night, it was all about the cantilever.
And that's why I threw in my speculation that the YIMBY announcement of an *overall* design release might've been premature.

I'm truly trying to understand it from your perspective, keeping in mind your having been at the meeting in question. It just seems to me that "official renderings released"---as I understand it to have been reported in YIMBY---and "rabid discussion on one element of a tower whose complete-profile renderings actually haven't been released yet" are two different species of animal.
IMO One might as well conclude that aside from the cantilever design's release, things are still on hold. I'll wait till Extell and/or Smith&Gill put out something...you know...like...official or something. ;) ;)

BrownTown Oct 2, 2013 9:30 PM

We really need to wait for the renders to come out before making any sort of judgement. What we have now doesn't show any of the detail in the facade or any other design elements that may be present. Most skyspcrapers don't have very imaginative shapes. You're often talking about rectangular prisms or similar shapes with various different setbacks. I don't see how the massing on this is really all that different than most supertalls except for the based which is obviously mandated by the Nordtrom's and which won't even be visible from the skyline. From central park this will look like a straight vertical tower just like every other supertall being built along 57th.

TouchTheSky13 Oct 2, 2013 11:07 PM

According to NYYimby, "Besides black and white images, no renderings of the development were presented, aside from a series of videos that depicted the base more than the overall design."

babybackribs2314 Oct 2, 2013 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13 (Post 6288098)
According to NYYimby, "Besides black and white images, no renderings of the development were presented, aside from a series of videos that depicted the base more than the overall design."

The black & white images showed the entire tower; they were drawings, and the bottom of the residential portion is apparent in the videos. If you want to ignore the video, that's totally fine, and you are welcome to disagree with me all you like - I don't care and this is not personal, it's a discussion on a skyscraper forum. Regardless of whether you rebut my points with italics, the fact is that the design is likely final and, unfortunately, lackluster.

I hope you are correct and the tower is somehow different from what they presented for approval but, you know, I don't think I'm wrong.

NYguy Oct 2, 2013 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6287261)
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.

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.

I agree that we need a spire or something other than a flat roof for the tallest building in Midtown. This building will be taller than others such as the north tower at Hudson Yards, 111 W. 57th, obviously the Tower Verre. With 432 as it is, we should have something more as tallest.



Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6287264)
This could turn out to be a permanent eyesore considering its gargantuan size.

The problem is that this building is residential, and not office. There are so many more options with residential than office, we expected more, especially with how nice One57 turned out.



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.

This isn't about Trump Tower Chicago. Let's not debate that here.



Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13 (Post 6287414)
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?

Looks to me like it's intended that each section work somewhat independent in the overall scheme - store, hotel, residential. It reminds me of SHoP's early design for that sight, which took that concept even further.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143684997/large.jpg




Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6287687)
given they already received approval for the cantilever at the meeting, I highly doubt this is a mock-up or anything but the final design;

Well that sucks. Even though it was only CB5, and not Landmarks, I was somehow under the impression that Extell would accept whatever judgement was found there. It's the cantilver that annoys me most, more even than a flat roof. I don't like it, and no matter how much better they can make the tower look, if its in that form, with that cantilver, it will annoy me. It's like a tower sitting off the roof of another tower. I wan't unity in this design, so when I look up I'm getting the full scope of the building. The only good thing about the cantilvert is that you won't notice it on the skyline.



Anyway, the media is becoming more vaguely aware of these towers, even if the reports continue to be inaccurate. Check the video in the link...


http://pix11.com/2013/10/02/new-luxu...#axzz2gbrRWq6e

The towers of West 57th Street: NYC’s tallest residential building will soon have skyscraping company



October 10, 2013
by Allison Kaden


Quote:

There are some big plans for West 57th Street. However, this midtown thoroughfare will not be filled with office buildings, but sky-high residential towers.

“A wall of glass towers guarding Central Park and blocking out everybody else, I guess that’s where we are going,” New Yorker Tony Regno said.

One57, slated to be the city’s tallest residential tower when it opens next year, has already sold units worth tens of millions of dollars. It’s more than 1000 feet high and will soon have similar neighbors.

The plan for 217 West 57th street was just unveiled. The tall residential tower would rival One World Trade Center in height if you don’t count the spire. Nordstrom’s would take up the lower floors.

Add in the planned mega high-rise at 107 West 57th and it’s a trio of towers built for the very rich all along one strip.

While some are worried these exclusive buildings will cast shadows and block views, not everyone is unhappy.

“We’re building so it’s showing signs of promise. Our economy is growing… so I think it’s a good thing for everybody,” John Sonitis said.

chris08876 Oct 2, 2013 11:58 PM

I'd put my money on it definitely not being fixed and final. It will change, and nevertheless the height is still fantastic. As long as the trend continues where we find the average height in the city increase, its a positive sign. When all in done, we wont care about those extra feet. Well just be happy its there and grow to love it no matter what form it takes. Same with park. Some say boring, but watch, those critics will end up liking it.:)

chris08876 Oct 3, 2013 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE (Post 6287551)
Oh yes they would... Based on 432 Park ave, its not only possible but very likely. With that in mind I fear the worst for this development.

With so much money involved and the ultra rich, I doubt it will get worse. Plus a A+ architect is behind it. They will deliver as there rep. is on the line in the city. I would find it bad for business if they make a eye sore, especially on 57th street. :tup:

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 12:55 AM

Are these black & white drawings yet available for public observation? If so, they should've been uploaded to the appropriate website(s) for that purpose even as that meeting's agenda was taking shape.
Not that it matters to a lot of my colleagues here...But in my parallel universe, what should've been a night dedicated to a thorough dicussion of the whole project as advertized online ought not to have devolved to a fracas over one aspect of it, regardless of its potential impact to the surrounding area or future projects adjacent to it.
The black & whites should've been released for general consumption, and there wouldn't be having all manner of trepidation, uncertainty and second-guessing bouncing off the walls of this forum. We look at the pics, we say we love it or loathe it, and we move on.
But we have what we have now and still suffer the fluidity of things.

UTEPman Oct 3, 2013 1:08 AM

My honest opinion is that people are so shocked by the terrible design, they can't accept that it's final.

They have exact heights and will start construction soon, so I think this is what will be built. If changes are made, they will likely be minor.

mistermetAJ Oct 3, 2013 1:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UTEPman (Post 6288224)
My honest opinion is that people are so shocked by the terrible design, they can't accept that it's final.

They have exact heights and will start construction soon, so I think this is what will be built. If changes are made, they will likely be minor.

If this is true, and I have no reason believe it isn't, then Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill have joined the ranks of Kaufman and Poon in my book. This is a permanent scar on the skyline they will be forever tied to. Its such a shame they were the chosen architects.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Oct 3, 2013 2:35 AM

We need to stop bashing the architects and attack the developers and tenants... They give the architects demands they must work with. If it was up the Adrian and Gordon I'm sure a tower like trump tower or the Greenland center would have gone up here.

babybackribs2314 Oct 3, 2013 2:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6288212)
Are these black & white drawings yet available for public observation? If so, they should've been uploaded to the appropriate website(s) for that purpose even as that meeting's agenda was taking shape.
Not that it matters to a lot of my colleagues here...But in my parallel universe, what should've been a night dedicated to a thorough dicussion of the whole project as advertized online ought not to have devolved to a fracas over one aspect of it, regardless of its potential impact to the surrounding area or future projects adjacent to it.
The black & whites should've been released for general consumption, and there wouldn't be having all manner of trepidation, uncertainty and second-guessing bouncing off the walls of this forum. We look at the pics, we say we love it or loathe it, and we move on.
But we have what we have now and still suffer the fluidity of things.

You can blame CB5's landmark committee; in fact, a member of the Arts Student League asked if they were available for viewing (the plans), and the chair said it was irrelevant to the conversation. Keep in mind the ASL's owners/whathaveyou accepted & endorsed the plan while its members are apparently totally unaware of what the development even entails, because even they do not have access to the plans!

The lack of transparency through the entire process of construction in NYC is simply shocking and it's something YIMBY is working and, I think, actually helping to change.

JayPro Oct 3, 2013 3:54 AM

I hardly understand why actual plans for the building are irrelevant when the whole point of the meeting which, ostensibly, was to publicize both the tower and the official renders thereof.
If possible, Extell and the architectural firm of record IMO ought to seize the drawings on the grounds of intellectual property. It's *their* tower, not the Community Board's or the Student League reps'. These plans ought to have been declared as on loan from Extell and the architects for official business during the meeting and then declared open to the public afterwards.
And if any smart-ass objector from either CB or the League had a bug in his cranium telling him to speak his stupid piece, someone ought to have risen to his feet and offered a motion to table further discussion on the matter.
I see your disdain with the process a lot more clearly now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:40 PM.

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