SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198228)

NYguy Sep 9, 2013 6:16 PM

^ It will definitely do that.

As if we didn't know already, thin is in.


Quote:

The venture's plans for the tower submitted last month to the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission call for an approximately
1,350-foot skyscraper that sets back from the street numerous times as it reaches higher—resembling tall, thin steps.

"It's really going to enhance the skyline," says Vishaan Chakrabarti, a partner at SHoP Architects, which designed the tower.
He says the planned tower would be clad with bronze-and-white terra-cotta stripes, so the building "sparkles during the day
and has a soft glow at night."

This will complement One57 very nicely.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152262795/original.jpg

Perklol Sep 9, 2013 6:25 PM

"The new tower must get approval from the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission..."

Could this be shortened or blocked??:uhh:

NYguy Sep 9, 2013 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6260252)
"The new tower must get approval from the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission..."

Could this be shortened or blocked??:uhh:

No.


Quote:

Mr. Stern and Property Markets Group are planning to convert the Steinway Building into an apartment building and transfer its development rights. The new tower must get approval from the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission because it's next door to the Steinway building site, which is a city landmark.

Last week, the landmarks committee of the neighborhood community board voted to give a nonbinding endorsement of the plan. The full community board is set to take up the issue this week.

Even the CB supports this.

scalziand Sep 9, 2013 6:31 PM

Here's what the terracotta mullions on the east and west sides could look like. These are from the Guangzhou Chow Tai Fook Center.

http://www.kpf.com/projects/Project258/16059_hr.jpg
http://www.kpf.com/project.asp?ID=258

NYguy Sep 9, 2013 6:51 PM

I suspect that rendering isn't the best view, due to the width of the lot (like the Tower Verre). I'm looking forward to more reveals.

JayPro Sep 9, 2013 7:24 PM

As I said before, we need--for starters at least--an east/west view.
I'm not calling make-or-break or anything.
It's just to give us a better idea of the setback dimensions and the presumptive glass crown.

There're just so many details that need a closer look simply by virtue of this gem's slenderness. I scarcely know where to begin.

Roadcruiser1 Sep 9, 2013 7:55 PM

So far I don't really like the design. I don't really like the crown. It looks like a giant sheer glass wall. Plus the back side doesn't look like it has steps. This gives the building such an odd shape. The steps in the front doesn't really help since they are so uneven. I rather see this taken back to the drawing board. It could be better. I thought I could expect more from SHOP. However I do like the thin shape of the building and I think it's pretty cool that even though it's that thin it's literally the height of Two World Trade Center!!!!!!!!!!

NYguy Sep 9, 2013 8:14 PM

I wish a spire could have been worked into the crown, but its fine enough without it. The increasing (it appears) setbacks recall a couple of skyscrapers to me...though this is a very different tower.


thewamphyri
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6198/6...5bfe2f89_z.jpg


http://www.kmca.com/Architecture%20G.../default8.html
http://www.kmca.com/Architecture%20G...os/IMG0035.jpg

JayPro Sep 9, 2013 8:37 PM

I'm hoping that with the first release of the E/W view that the glass crown reveals a flame-tipped sort of shape.

Blaze23 Sep 9, 2013 10:41 PM

There's not much to see to make a judgement on the building so i'll hold off on that, but I love those thin and tall towers popping up all over the city. For anybody familiar with French architect Le Courboisier, on his first visit to NYC, he said as much as he enjoyed the city's skyscrapers, he would've preferred if there were less but they were taller. I always thought that's how I envision the city in the future with taller towers taking less space at street level, making the city more enjoyable to walk around and gaze at the giant structures. Now these towers are built that way more because of their small footprints than for the sake of urban architecture but their impact on the skyline would be nonetheless the same. I can't wait a few years from now when there will be a few thin and pointy towers standing above the density of the New York skyline. Welcome to the future NYC!

sbarn Sep 9, 2013 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6260252)
"The new tower must get approval from the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission..."

Could this be shortened or blocked??:uhh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6260256)
No.

While I certainly hope you're right, however I don't think the answer to this question is as absolute as you suggest. It depends on what kind of jurisdiction Landmarks has over this tower (i.e. how its situated on the site, how it incorporates the Steinway Building, etc). I've worked on a lot of Landmarks projects. Once they insisted on reviewing our building that was located immediately adjacent to a Landmarks district because it cast shadows within the district. I don't think this kind of situation will be the cast here given that an as of right tower was previously proposed here, however LPC can be unpredictable.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6260256)
Even the CB supports this.

While the land use committee supported the proposal, the full CB still has to vote on (and hopefully approve) it. Furthermore, just because the CB supports a project, it doesn't mean Landmarks will approve it (although it helps). I once worked on a rooftop addition project in SoHo that got approval from the CB, only to then be rejected by Landmarks.

Anyway, fingers crossed that this is approved and built as planned. I think it looks amazing!

JayPro Sep 9, 2013 11:44 PM

I'd think that as long as the building thay Landmarks is looking to protect remains untouched in any way, there shouldn't be any issue. This seems more so especially since everyone knows how much tax $$$ can be reaped from the tower's potential residents.
Besides, it would seem to me that civic groups/NIMBY's/6-to-1-half-a-dozen-to-the-other would be more likely to dismiss or vote down something...anything AAMOF...just because. Also, Sbarn mentions a project in SoHo that received the double moutza. NIMBYism seems to me much stronger there, as is evinced (for one thing) by the extremely conservative building height.
57th is a different kettle, though. Regardless, I dare whatever enclave of NIMBY's there are in this burgeoning corridor to challenge this tower's current status on whatever grounds they see fit to pull out of their fiber-holes.

chris08876 Sep 9, 2013 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6260696)
I'd think that as long as the building thay Landmarks is looking to protect remains untouched in any way, there shouldn't be any issue. This seems more so especially since everyone knows how much tax $$$ can be reaped from the tower's potential residents.
Besides, it would seem to me that civic groups/NIMBY's/6-to-1-half-a-dozen-to-the-other would be more likely to dismiss or vote down something...anything AAMOF...just because. Also, Sbarn mentions a project in SoHo that received the double moutza. NIMBYism seems to me much stronger there, as is evinced (for one thing) by the extremely conservative building height.
57th is a different kettle, though. Regardless, I dare whatever enclave of NIMBY's there are in this burgeoning corridor to challenge this tower's current status on whatever grounds they see fit to pull out of their fiber-holes.

I think the Nimby's just lost the war. The postcards of Central Park are all going to look different in a few years. The suspense lies in 225 W 57th street. There are yet to be renderings.

NYguy Sep 10, 2013 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6260609)
I always thought that's how I envision the city in the future with taller towers taking less space at street level, making the city more enjoyable to walk around and gaze at the giant structures.

Transport yourself back in time, and witness a skyline where tall, thin towers dominate...


http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=482701&t=w
http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypld...s=20&snum=&e=w


http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress...ck-pier-17.jpg
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/11/vin...attan-skyline/




Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6260668)
While the land use committee supported the proposal, the full CB still has to vote on (and hopefully approve) it. Furthermore, just because the CB supports a project, it doesn't mean Landmarks will approve it (although it helps). I once worked on a rooftop addition project in SoHo that got approval from the CB, only to then be rejected by Landmarks.

You misunderstand. This tower doesn't need CB support at all, I mentioned it because the CB would normally be the NIMBY arm opposed to the development.

JDS has already filed permits for altering the landmark (only the lower portion of the building is landmarked), and has been cooperating with the LPC. It's more of a formality that they approve work there, but keep in mind also that Barnett's Nordstrom tower had issues with getting landmarks approval to do demo there. It has to be done right. And although integrated into the landmark building, JDS still owns the air rights, and can build as of right without the landmark. The landmark approval has more to do with what JDS plans for Steinway Hall.

I'll repost this article concerning the landmark building, which would now include some of the interiors as well...


http://www.citylandnyc.org/opulent-p...rk/#more-19787

Opulent Piano Retail Space Considered as a Potential Interior Landmark
Owner’s representative expressed support for designation; testified that landmark would be preserved in context of planned larger development.



http://www.citylandnyc.org/wp-conten...teinway-SM.jpg


07/31/2013


Quote:

On July 23, 2013, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing on the potential designation of the reception room and adjoining rooms and hallways of the Steinway & Sons retail space at 109 West 57th Street in Manhattan. The neo-Renaissance interior was completed in 1928 to designs by the firm of Warren & Wetmore. Warren & Wetmore was the architecture firm behind several other City landmarks, including the interior of Grand Central Terminal.

The primary interior space is an octagonal double-height rotunda, in which customers were met by sales representatives before entering the showrooms. The room features a crystal chandelier and allegorical paintings, by Swiss-Austrian painter Angelica Kauffman, adorn the domed ceiling. The room is visible from the street through large display windows. A foyer on the 57th Street entrance possesses white marble arches on Ionic columns on its four walls. Though some rooms are separated by glass or glazed infill, the interior reads as one continuous space.

Michael Stern, Managing Partner of JDS Development Group, testified that the ownership enthusiastically supported designation. JDS purchased the property in 2013, and intends to build a tower at the site. Stern said that JDS “look forward to integrating the rotunda into a larger development.”

The Historic Districts Council’s Nadezhda Williams, speaking in support of designation, said that “seeing an elegant Steinway piano in such sumptuous surroundings is rather like seeing an animal in their natural habitat.” Christabel Gough, of the Society for the Architecture of the City, said the “iconic New York institution” served to “express the grandeur and importance of the concert piano” in the City’s culture.

Chair Robert B. Tierney closed the hearing after thanking JDS for their “cooperation and participation.” A date for a vote on designation has not yet been scheduled.


Filing for some initial work on Steinway....
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

FILING FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIOR DEMOLITION.



http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/70453

Keeping Up With the Super-Tall Joneses: SHoP Designs Another Manhattan Skyscraper

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/...chpaper-01.jpg



September 9, 2013
Nicole Anderson


Quote:

Manhattan’s 57th Street continues its ascent as New York City’s new gold coast with a skinny skyscraper unveiled by SHoP Architects and JDS Development today. SHoP most recently celebrated the groundbreaking of another skyscraper for JDS along the East River, but has now been tapped to build a lean, luxury high-rise on West 57th Street that could climb to a whopping 1,350 feet tall.

Stepping back from the street as it rises, the quarter-mile-high skyscraper will emulate steps and be clad in bronze-and-white terra-cotta stripes. SHoP partner, Vishaan Chakrabarti, told the WSJ the materials would create an effect that ”sparkles during the day and has a soft glow at night.” The developers were able to add height to the building by purchasing air rights from other properties in the vicinity.

Elsewhere on 57th Street, BIG is building a pyramidal “court-scraper,” Raphael Viñoly has designed the 1,380-foot-tall 432 Park Tower, Christian de Portzamparc’s One57 tower is nearing completion, Cetra Ruddy has designed an ultra-skinny 51 story tower, and SOM’s Roger Duffy is planning a prismatic, 57-story tower. Chicago’s skyscraper experts, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill, have also been tapped to design a skyscraper near 57th and Broadway, but no design has been released.

The developers said they hope to break ground by 2014.

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/...02-550x427.jpg


Seems the coloring is a little different here, but likely just the image...
http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/...chpaper-03.jpg

NYguy Sep 10, 2013 12:46 AM

Slightly better view...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152270002/original.jpg

JayPro Sep 10, 2013 12:59 AM

The one thing that bugs me here is how the facade all around looks almost laminated.

MarshallKnight Sep 10, 2013 1:05 AM

:previous: Is it just me, or does it look like the sections are slightly concave? Very cool wrinkle if that's true. And the apparent pinstripes are great.

I'm also not 100% sold on the design only because we have only seen this angle (honestly not a great first-reveal render), but I'm already salivating at the prospect of further reveals.

ILNY Sep 10, 2013 1:22 AM

Nice design, this building will dictate new style in NYC - supertall superthin. Since there is harder to find big lots and small lots are more available I see more of this type of towers being build in the future. It already started with 432 Park ...more to follow. I will wait for final design and height though, just don't want to be disappointed like with Nortsdrom.

Roadcruiser1 Sep 10, 2013 1:50 AM

Just as I feared. A close up proved that I was correct. The only think that makes this building even halfway decent is the terracotta stripes. Otherwise it did be dead to me!!!!!!!!!!

JayPro Sep 10, 2013 2:05 AM

To deviate briefly, Nordsrom's final design release will IMO only disappoint to the measure that the viewer's opinion has already been formulated from secondhand descriptions and his mind refuses to be changed.

In other words, if green and curvy--as 225's final look has been loosely described and construed by a few not exactly in the loop--reminds the viewer of a lasagna noodle with guacamole added for coloring, and that somehow forces an extrapolation to an envisioned final product, it IMO figures that the extrapolator won't like what he sees even before he sees it.

But color me 110% certain that the whole Landmarks Committee will greenlight this, as NYGuy's more detailed explanations of the convoluted processes involved bear out. I for one don't see how the dimensions of this structure interfere in any way with the one they're looking to protect. And it's not as if we're dealing with a Sauron's army of NIMBY's either, thank God...at least those at the mid-to-bottom level chain of command.
What's more, Amanda Burden and her bean-counters have kept a profile bordering flatline.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 AM.

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