^ It will definitely do that.
As if we didn't know already, thin is in. Quote:
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152262795/original.jpg |
"The new tower must get approval from the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission..."
Could this be shortened or blocked??:uhh: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 |
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.
|
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. |
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!!!!!!!!!!
|
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 |
I'm hoping that with the first release of the E/W view that the glass crown reveals a flame-tipped sort of shape.
|
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!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, fingers crossed that this is approved and built as planned. I think it looks amazing! |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Filing for some initial work on Steinway.... http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01 Quote:
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:
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 |
|
The one thing that bugs me here is how the facade all around looks almost laminated.
|
: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. |
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.
|
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!!!!!!!!!!
|
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 12:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.