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)

Onn Jan 6, 2015 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6857842)

This is a massive building! I wonder how many diggers you could fit in that hole. I can see four already including the little one, in the middle of New York City. :D

NYguy Jan 6, 2015 10:16 PM

In 3 to 4 years, there will be people shopping down there.

Skyguy_7 Jan 9, 2015 2:24 PM

A friendly reminder: official renderings come out this quarter!

Guiltyspark Jan 9, 2015 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6868765)
A friendly reminder: official renderings come out this quarter!

I can't wait to see the renderings. I think more people are going to be a lot more excited about this once they see all the details that we are missing now.

chris08876 Jan 9, 2015 10:35 PM

What's unique about this decade when it comes to proposals or construction is the dramatic increase in roof height. The number in the 900-999 ft range, and then supertalls, they seem to increase. Gradual progression of roof height minus the spires.

NYguy Jan 13, 2015 8:15 AM

A look at old massing models...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158791632/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158791633/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158791634/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158791635/original.jpg

Onn Jan 14, 2015 12:16 AM

^
I'm kind of glad that one didn't make it... :(

Design-mind Jan 14, 2015 2:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6873569)
^
I'm kind of glad that one didn't make it... :(

Couldn't agree more. A very banal design. I am hoping for spectacular with the new renderings, fingers crossed!

gramsjdg Jan 15, 2015 5:11 AM

I can't think of any other building that has built up as much anticipation in terms of the official final render and final height. After all, we are talking about a new tallest for North America after a 40 year reign by the Sears Tower. We've ridden a roller coaster with this tower that has been all over the place in terms of both height and design since it was first proposed. Hopefully Barnett has some pleasant surprises in store...

Hudson11 Jan 15, 2015 6:26 AM

NYC hasn't ceased to impress. 4 years ago nobody would've imagined 2 office towers 'officially' taller than Sears and a tower of the burgeoning luxury residental boom to be taller than it by roof height. :worship:
I don't think the final design will deviate much from what YIMBY revealed to us, other than it being possibly up to 1550' to the parapet.

chris08876 Jan 15, 2015 8:35 AM

From the city standpoint, it would be the ESB. Its the one goliath that everybody around the world thinks of when NYC crosses their minds.

Besides WTC1, it wouldn't have dawned upon many that the ESB would be dethroned or humbled 5 years ago. The ESB is on its way to becoming the 8th tallest in the city once all of these projects get built and WTC2 begins. Arguably the one skyscraper that most think of, won't even be in the top 5. One Vanderbilt alone will dominate it. And...2015 just started. Who knows what surprises we may get.

From a skyscraper point of view, this city is on a level that many can't compete with. Even certain Chinese cities aren't building as fast as we are here. Its also an excellent safe haven for capital, and this is further fueling the boom. When crap goes down in Russia or S.America, they all flock here.

NYguy Jan 15, 2015 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 6875402)
I don't think the final design will deviate much from what YIMBY revealed to us, other than it being possibly up to 1550' to the parapet.

Don't expect too much of a change, but the renderings will make a big difference in how we perceive the tower. It's the details that will ultimately decide whether we like or hate this tower, it's what has been missing up to this point.



Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6875461)
From a skyscraper point of view, this city is on a level that many can't compete with. Even certain Chinese cities aren't building as fast as we are here. Its also an excellent safe haven for capital, and this is further fueling the boom. When crap goes down in Russia or S.America, they all flock here.

Let's not be concerned with what's going on everywhere else. This tower is under construction, and for that we are grateful. Those other places can take care of themselves, so leave that out of the discussion.

NYguy Jan 16, 2015 2:10 PM

I'm so sick of these people complaining about these thin towers that actually do more to preserve more light...


http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...g-of-the-light

Supersizing Manhattan: New Yorkers rage against the dying of the light
‘Supertall’ buildings are sprouting like beanstalks in central New York, costing its citizens precious sunshine and air, and turning the city’s skyline into a jumble



http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-1430/h-...2060x1236.jpeg


Fred A Bernstein
16 January 2015


Quote:

On his terrace overlooking Central Park, a friend, who struck it rich as a tutoring entrepreneur, is pointing. “The Nordstrom Tower – we think that’s going to be the one,” he says, indicating the site at 225 West 57th Street, where a condo tower is rising to a height of 1770 feet. He means the one that will finally block his view of the Empire State Building, the most famous skyscraper in the world, but increasingly a midget among New York’s new giants.

It’s hard to feel sorry for a millionaire losing a bauble in a jewelled necklace of lights. But all New Yorkers are losing familiar vistas, and some are losing light and air, as supertall buildings sprout like beanstalks in midtown Manhattan.

There are a dozen such “supertalls” – buildings of 1,000 feet or higher – in the construction or planning stages. And the buildings are not, as in Dubai or Shanghai’s Pudong district, being constructed where nothing else had stood. They are, instead, crowding into already dense neighbourhoods where light and air are at a premium, and quality-of-life issues are on the minds of everyone except, perhaps, the billionaires buying the cloud-hung condos as investment properties.

The construction of towers surrounding the Empire State Building is just one part of the problem. For 85 years, the Empire State has been a symbol of the city – New York’s incomparable logo – and a wayfinding device par excellence. Lost in Manhattan? Swivel until you see that famous mast, the one that King Kong clung to, and you have your bearings. Without the tallest point in a hierarchical skyline, the city will be disorienting, to residents and visitors alike.

In 2013, Warren St John, a writer who lives near Central Park, began campaigning for a moratorium on new skyscrapers immediately south of the park; his concern was that playgrounds and ballfields would increasingly be in shadow. The city’s outgoing mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire, wasn’t about to block construction of condos for his plutocratic peers; more surprisingly, the city’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, a populist, hasn’t addressed the issue either. By all accounts, he needs developers on his side if they are going to build the subsidised housing he hopes to make a part of his legacy. Whatever the reason, De Blasio “has signalled no interest in curtailing development in any way”, says a disappointed St John.

If so, the mayor is turning his back on a history of reining in development for the sake of the many. More than 100 years ago, New York pioneered zoning codes designed to bring light and air (if not Central Park views) to even its most disadvantaged residents. In 1879, the city introduced a “tenement law” that required small apartment buildings for the lower-classes to include airshafts; in 1901, the law was revised to call for large-scale courtyards.

Around the same time, titans of industry were building skyscrapers in midtown and the Financial District. (In those days, large commercial enterprises were confined to a few neighbourhoods, a kind of segregation that no longer exists.) Some of the structures, particularly the Equitable Building at 120 Broadway, completed in 1915, with more than one million square-feet of space on a one-acre site, were so overpowering that, in 1916, the city began requiring setbacks at various heights, to make sure light and air reached the street.

The setback requirements, generally ensuring large reductions in floor area above the 10th storey, and further reductions higher up, led to one of the most distinctive building types of the 20th century: the wedding-cake tower, with the striations required by law inspiring jazz-age architects to greatness. (The Empire State and Chrysler Buildings are elongated examples of the form; the setback laws allowed for towers of any height so long as they were less than a quarter of the area of the building lot below.)

But in 1961 the city revised the zoning laws again, making the wedding-cake towers period pieces. Instead, entranced by Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building on Park Avenue, a masterpiece of bronze metal set back in a handsome plaza, officials switched to a zoning code that encourages standalone towers. In exchange for ceding open space to the public, developers could build straight up (the permissible height was governed by a calculation called “floor area ratio”, or FAR). The problem: not every architect is as good as Mies, or every client as generous as Seagram. The city was overtaken by banal, sheer towers set in plazas that offered very little to the public and, given the height of the new buildings, were often in shadow.

But that was a time of a rising middle class, when affordable housing was being built all over the city, and residents commuted to jobs in blocky office buildings (increasingly, commercial tenants wanted large floor plates). Only the World Trade Center, 1,368 feet high, overtook the Empire State Building in height. But the 110-storey Twin Towers, anchoring their own downtown skyline and set in a giant plaza (called a “superblock”), were a special case. Otherwise, buildings of 40-60 storeys were the norm.

No one, it seems, was anticipating the current wave of pencil-thin, supertall towers. The technology they depend on has been around for decades — “mass dampers”, which prevent thin towers from swaying uncomfortably, are nothing new. So has the structural know-how that allows them to rise safely even from tiny bases. One of the buildings, 432 Park Avenue, has recently topped out a 1,396 feet, from a site of just 90 feet square.

The real generator of form now is the winner-take-all economy — and with it, the demand for sky-high condos at sky-high prices. Virtually all of the new buildings are condominiums with just one unit to a floor, which means they can get by with very few elevators. And that, in turns, mean they can be built even on very narrow lots. In other words, the demand for $20m to $100m condos, with views in all directions and no next-door neighbours, has given rise to a new building type – making the revised skyline the physical manifestation of New York’s income disparities.

Amazingly, none of the towers required city permission (although they did require clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration, given Manhattan’s proximity to three airports). The city doesn’t limit height, just floor area ratio, and developers, can buy “air rights” from adjacent buildings, letting them go supertall “as of right”. The developer of the Nordstrom Tower, named for the department store at its base, bought air rights from the neighbouring Art Students League, paying the venerable school (which had no plans to enlarge its handsome, 1892 building) some $30m.


http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-1430/h-...2060x1236.jpeg

Manhattan’s three tallest buildings in a line: 432 Park Avenue, the Empire State Building, and One World Trade Center.

BrownTown Jan 16, 2015 2:59 PM

Quote:

Without the tallest point in a hierarchical skyline, the city will be disorienting, to residents and visitors alike.
I find this reasoning especially silly. In a city with as perfect a grid as New York do you really need the ESB to tell you where you are? Most of the streets are on an obvious numbers system and if you can't figure out what direction 33rd street is from 57th street or eighth avenue is from fifth avenue then something is wrong. Also, in a world where everyone is carrying around a smart-phone with GPS who the heck is navigating by way-points to begin with?

NYguy Jan 16, 2015 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6877339)
I find this reasoning especially silly. In a city with as perfect a grid as New York do you really need the ESB to tell you where you are? Most of the streets are on an obvious numbers system and if you can't figure out what direction 33rd street is from 57th street or eighth avenue is from fifth avenue then something is wrong. Also, in a world where everyone is carrying around a smart-phone with GPS who the heck is navigating by way-points to begin with?

It's just stupid for him to suggest people can't find their way on city streets. Sure, the ESB, and the old Twin Towers could be a point of reference from anywhere in the tri-state. But by that reasoning, the new towers will be as well. And I've got news for that guy, more times than not, you won't see the ESB from Midtowns streets.

The only time I ever feel the need to use the skyline for navigation is when I (eventually) loose direction in Central Park. I've been going there for years, and because of the size and topography of the park, you can loose sense of direction. I know CPW from CPS or any other side of the park, so it does help. But from that point of view, you could argue that the new towers are actually a benefit, as they will be easier to see.

Roadcruiser1 Jan 16, 2015 5:39 PM

These people that are anti-development are often out of town people that want this city to look like Detroit, or San Francisco. They need to get out of here before they ruin our city.

Crawford Jan 16, 2015 6:19 PM

Tall, skinny buildings mean fewer shadows, not more shadows. Lower, bulkier buildings would produce more shadows on the ground.

And shadows have nothing to do with the city's building code anyways. You don't base your zoning around shadows, which aren't even a clear positive or negative. Who walks through Central Park and complains about all the shadows from the trees? It's just another crazy issue so the NIMBYs can complain, I guess.

gttx Jan 16, 2015 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6877461)
It's just stupid for him to suggest people can't find their way on city streets. Sure, the ESB, and the old Twin Towers could be a point of reference from anywhere in the tri-state. But by that reasoning, the new towers will be as well. And I've got news for that guy, more times than not, you won't see the ESB from Midtowns streets.

The only time I ever feel the need to use the skyline for navigation is when I (eventually) loose direction in Central Park. I've been going there for years, and because of the size and topography of the park, you can loose sense of direction. I know CPW from CPS or any other side of the park, so it does help. But from that point of view, you could argue that the new towers are actually a benefit, as they will be easier to see.

I live in Manhattan (Harlem) and work in Manhattan (Wall Street), and I don't see the ESB from either of those places. How on earth is it a wayfinding tool anywhere in the city?

Also, if you are lost or disoriented in New York, then 1) use the streets to navigate, 2) use a map or a smart phone, or 3) ask someone. You don't need some hypothetical pinnacle on the skyline to direct you. In fact, many people don't use the buildings to navigate at all (my wife still doesn't put together that the direction of the tall buildings is south).

This article is pure bullshit for an apparent audience (who, exactly?) craving a giant heap of bullshit. I guess they got what they wanted.

chris08876 Jan 16, 2015 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx (Post 6878032)

Also, if you are lost or disoriented in New York, then 1) use the streets to navigate, 2) use a map or a smart phone, or 3) ask someone.

I think you're overestimating people. All three apply. You'd be surprised how they can't even do that. Sometimes you even ask New Yorkers, and they are just as clueless.

sbarn Jan 16, 2015 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx (Post 6878032)
This article is pure bullshit for an apparent audience (who, exactly?) craving a giant heap of bullshit. I guess they got what they wanted.

Agreed. Plus anyone complaining about a distant tower from their balcony overlooking Central Park deserves a kick in the shin.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:41 AM.

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