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 Dec 25, 2013 6:17 PM

I think the shadows hysteria is overblown. First, I don't think it would be as bad as expected considering the sun and shadows move throughout the day. Second, there are already huge shadows in Central Park. If they don't want these buildings the city is going to have to tear down all the skyscrapers that are already there causing problems, that's the only way to fix the problem. After all it is a park...

supertallchaser Dec 25, 2013 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie (Post 6385029)
that's because you have no taste and haven't any love for new york. i totally agree with the notion that we need some sort of european-style review board for extremely tall buildings, and that the park needs to be protected from extreme shadowing. like, people come on these boards to cheer extreme development, it's not even engineers or architects or residents, but just people who like to measure human (or nationalist, if you're asian, russian or canadian) progress by the height of the towers built in the closest city to where you live. so moronic.

nyc midtown: let's knock down a fully, 100% of the year occupied 10 story building to get the same number of people into a building that's occupied at even 30% capactiy no more than 30% of the year. it's great if you're in the industry (like me), but i really don't see how there's any defense of supertalls that black out cp or look like the way 225 w57th does.

barnett got so greedy that he may have tipping-pointed another dozen developments into the oubliettes. cheering for a fuck like this is just idiotic. bad architecture, greedy trump-style "grab-it-all/leave-nothing-on-the-table"-ism, just won't work at this point. like watch all the reactionary anti-development stuff come up, almost exclusively because of how bad this tower is. bloomberg should have sat this guy down.

bah.

there was no need for you to get flustered about my own opinion,i like the tower its out there sure,i just think it has a bad reputation,kind of like an ugly duckling of the bunch :haha: ,but for you to just put me on blast for no reason is uncalled for,i dont slander someone elses view on concepts so why should you?

supertallchaser Dec 25, 2013 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyc15 (Post 6385192)
my question is ,can garry barnett come back to the 1550ft height ??

well with 220 cps he could to get the maximum amount of views i suppose its up to him. it would be a good buisness move.

easy as pie Dec 26, 2013 7:09 AM

bah, this discussion is sort of irrelevant. like, my point is that barnett and others who are pushing the limits are guiding the city to a huge backlash by new yorkers, it's just plain statement of fact. cheering for this building - the 2013-2017 equivalent of the trump towers of the 1980s and 1990s - is like cheering for a huge (figurative) vortex in the center of the city.

also, bringing up shadow diagrams is pretty unconvincing, not only do those seem disingenuous, but it's only the start, which is the point of restrictions. like, does a tall streetwall along the southern park justify a darkened park? seems crazy even to try to defend something like that

LMich Dec 26, 2013 8:22 AM

I love how the shadow comparison is for a few hours during the longest day of the year. No, they don't have any agenda, at all. lol Honestly, I can't take it seriously, so I'm not even angry.

aquablue Dec 26, 2013 7:09 PM

Do the shadow concerns have anything to do with tree health?

Dac150 Dec 26, 2013 7:14 PM

Making an argument for the sake of making an argument . . . that's all that 'shadow' article is. You have to anticipate some form of opposition, so there you go. The argument comes across weak, desperate and tired to me.

McSky Dec 26, 2013 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6385706)
Do the shadow concerns have anything to do with tree health?

Fortunately, the trees in Central Park (most of which are deciduous) will have the least need of sunlight when the shadows cast by the 4 new supertalls and 220 CPS will be most pronounced (October-March).

NYguy Dec 27, 2013 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyc15 (Post 6385192)
my question is ,can garry barnett come back to the 1550ft height ??

Barnett could go higher if he wanted to. It's all a matter of design.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6385197)
I think the shadows hysteria is overblown. First, I don't think it would be as bad as expected considering the sun and shadows move throughout the day. Second, there are already huge shadows in Central Park....

They're just trying to revive an old argument, but a pretty stupid one. Because once those air rights are sold and used, they're gone forever. Consolidating those air rights on single sights means less buildings will be built around the park.

And as you can see from their own graphics, there's virtually no difference between before and after...


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...s25n-3-web.jpg



And all of that other green colored space? That's park too.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...adows-1124.jpg


So, if I'm walking through the park, and I happen to come upon a sliver of shade (which is welcome on the hot summer days btw), I won't freak out.



Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie (Post 6385461)
bah, this discussion is sort of irrelevant. like, my point is that barnett and others who are pushing the limits are guiding the city to a huge backlash by new yorkers, it's just plain statement of fact. cheering for this building - the 2013-2017 equivalent of the trump towers of the 1980s and 1990s - is like cheering for a huge (figurative) vortex in the center of the city.

New Yorkers don't really care about shadows. It's a very vocal minority that complain about everything. Tall buildings have been going up in Manhattan for years, and will continue to do so. People who complain about tall buildings always have, and will continue to do so. But New Yorkers are proud of the city's skyline. I was thinking about it the other day when I saw this ad...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153929114/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153929113/original.jpg





And with sensible arguments like this one, the backlash against the backlash has begun.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6384492)
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...rk-skyscraper/

The new era of the New York skyscraper


By Felix Salmon
December 24, 2013




Extell spoke about the "controversy"....


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12/...-central-park/

Growing City Skyline Could Bring Dark Days To Central Park


http://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.co...0&h=349&crop=1


December 26, 2013


Quote:

The ever-growing and changing skyline of New York City could have a profound and less than desirable effect on a Big Apple treasure. As CBS 2′s Scott Rapoport reported there could be dark days ahead for Central Park. It is a possibility beyond a shadow of a doubt according to a study by the Municipal Art Society.

“It’s upsetting. You don’t want any change. Change is hard to see,” Midtown resident Danielle Codel, said. The study said that the growing number of mega skyscrapers being built in the 57th Street area, like the Enormo, Tower One 57, and those in the planning stages will cast long shadows across the southern part of Central Park and dim areas of the shining jewel.

“What can you do? It’s progress,” Shannon Riley said, “They have to build the buildings right. They need more space.”

Studies showed that buildings exceeding 1000-ft will create different shadows at different times of the year. In some cases those shadows will be 20 blocks long. “It’s going to cast a shadow that will reach the playground, the zoo, you know way up north,” Layla Law-Gisiko explained.

Law-Gisiko is the chair of the Landmarks Committee for Community Board 5. She said that developers are able to build so high because they bought the air rights from the buildings around them and that there is not a public review process. “It will basically plunge the park into a solar eclipse in the middle of the day,” she said. Residents told CBS 2′s Rapoport that making the park darker may not be such a bright idea. “New York City is a place known for its beauty and I think Central Park adds so much to that,” Erica Liebowitz said.

Extell Development Company, the developer of One 57 Tower, said that its buildings are very slender at the top and that moving shadows will mean that no single area of the park will be under a shadow for more than minutes at a time.

Submariner Dec 27, 2013 10:00 PM

But think of the children!!! Think of the trees which will die and central park will become a toxic waste dump!!! The animals in the zoo will all suffer from these horrible shadows!!! I want more services and a better quality of life without any tax increases and no development damnit!!!

NYC GUY Dec 27, 2013 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6386572)
But think of the children!!! Think of the trees which will die and central park will become a toxic waste dump!!! The animals in the zoo will all suffer from these horrible shadows!!! I want more services and a better quality of life without any tax increases and no development damnit!!!

Don't forget about the Crazy Pigeon Lady how can you forget about her and her poor pigeons!

miesian Dec 27, 2013 10:59 PM

Less skin cancer.

Submariner Dec 28, 2013 1:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miesian (Post 6386620)
Less skin cancer.

We should start a campaign based on this to counter the NIMBY's :D

NYguy Dec 28, 2013 11:43 AM

More pushback against the ridiculousness of the shadow people...



http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/12/...ecture-review/

Kimmelman in the dark about Central Park’s skyscraper problem


December 27, 2013
By James Gardner


Quote:

In a recent article, the architecture critic of the New York Times, Michael Kimmelman, questioned the wisdom of constructing all those super-tall buildings around the city, especially on the southern edge of Central Park.

....Where I disagree with him is in his worrying, together with the Municipal Art Society in an upcoming report, that these tall buildings, achieved through the purchase of air rights from existing properties, will cast unwelcome shadows over Central Park. By the very nature of the purchase of air rights, these buildings cannot cluster together as the previous generations of skyscrapers have done on Central Park South, those of the 1930s and then of the 1970s. Most of the damage to sunlight in the southern end of Central Park was already perpetrated forty or so years ago: The new buildings are, and will remain, sufficiently isolated that they will block, if anything, only a few minutes of sunlight during the winter months.

Perhaps more pertinently, the emergence of the four or five super-tall buildings that are nearing completion or will soon begin to rise, represents the next phase in the development of skyscrapers in New York City.

Now, it is the paradox of skyscrapers that they function aesthetically only where they do not function urbanistically. Skyscrapers look best when the can rise in virtual isolation, without competition from other buildings. That is how they are conceived by their architects. But the circumstances in which that isolation is possible (small or scattered cities), generally make the construction of tall buildings unnecessary. You don’t need a massive skyscraper in Santa Fe, because there is quite enough space for the population to inhabit and work in.

In Manhattan, however, where every square foot is jealously counted and protected, skyscrapers make sense, but so — at least until recently — has the clustering of them into neighborhoods where their individuality is virtually invisible from the street.

This newest batch of skyscrapers, however, will be different. Because of landmarking and the purchase of air rights, that clustering of buildings will not be possible. Also, these are residential buildings rather than the offices buildings that, until recently, have been the main typology of skyscrapers. The clustering of tall buildings would ruin most views, which would inhibit their being clumped together in the first place, even if local laws allowed it.

Instead, for the first time in generations, we will soon see along Central Park South, skyscrapers rising as they were originally conceived, in splendid isolation.

nyc15 Dec 29, 2013 9:45 PM

[QUOTE=NYguy;6386501]Barnett could go higher if he wanted to. It's all a matter of design.


as a result he can can make this tower above 500 m
i am right ??

NYguy Dec 30, 2013 2:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyc15 (Post 6388014)
as a result he can can make this tower above 500 m
i am right ??

If he wanted to. Although the design is being driven in part by the higher units, Barnett has previously said a quality design was more important. In other words, if pushing the design even higher will result in compromised units, then it won't happen.



December 28, 2013


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153958222/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153958223/original.jpg


Maybe Santa left a little surprise for us, design being of most importance.

NYguy Jan 1, 2014 2:24 PM

Happy New Year. 2014 promises to be more exciting than the last. We shall see.

But let's get right down to it.

The Municipal Arts Society (MAS) has put forth their study, titled "The Accidental Skyline". (Aren't the best skylines "accidental" though?)

While the MAS usually has the best interests of the City in mind, this ill-conceived study is just that, ill-conceived. It's very alarmist in nature, and it's not something high on the radar of concern for most New Yorkers (thus, the alarmist nature of the report).

I am at least grateful for the graphics though...



1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981039/original.jpg


2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981040/original.jpg


3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981042/original.jpg


4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981043/original.jpg


5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981044/original.jpg


6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981045/original.jpg


7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981046/original.jpg


8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981048/original.jpg


9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981049/original.jpg


10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981050/original.jpg


11.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981051/original.jpg


12.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981053/original.jpg


13.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981054/original.jpg


14.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981055/original.jpg


15.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981056/original.jpg


16.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981057/original.jpg


17.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981058/original.jpg


18.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981059/original.jpg


19.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981060/original.jpg


20.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981062/original.jpg


21.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981063/original.jpg


22.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981064/original.jpg


23.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981065/original.jpg


24.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981072/original.jpg


25.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981073/original.jpg


26.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981074/original.jpg


27. Prior park battles of the MAS

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981075/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981076/original.jpg


28.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981077/original.jpg


29.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981078/original.jpg

wilfredo267 Jan 1, 2014 2:58 PM

ls this an organized effort to block these buildings from being built? l've noticed in this forum there has been an increase of discussion about shadows so l wondered.

NYguy Jan 1, 2014 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilfredo267 (Post 6390187)
ls this an organized effort to block these buildings from being built?


No, it's too late for that. It's an effort by the MAS to get the City to start rethinking the "as of right" developments.
They want all buildings that will be as tall as these towers to go through the City's approval process (ULURP).

Of all the towers, only the Tower Verre had to, and we know how that turned out.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981356/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981357/original.jpg

Perklol Jan 1, 2014 3:18 PM

Will the city do such a thing? I hope not.

Off topic - What building is shown to the left of the Chrysler Building photo?


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:57 PM.

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