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)

chris08876 Jul 9, 2014 6:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6647579)
I think it's a kind of taboo that noone is allowed to go taller than 1WTC, which of course is total BS. The city needs to move forward, the WTC can't stay the tallest forever. At least the building has a spire, which sets it apart from the other 57th Street towers. Btw can you please add "FLOORS" to the thread title? Thanks.

IF we count the sea level change, it technically is the tallest in the city. :)

Nevertheless, when I woke up today, this was an amazing surprise. Funny as yesterday somebody was complaining about how every supertall gets reduced. Ha, well so much for that theory.

JayPro Jul 9, 2014 6:55 PM

I'm saying that affordable housing trends as evinced by Larry's latest West Side foray seems to show me that the nature of the housing project seems directly proportional to the needs of the potential occupants.
I tried to argue in my last post that folks who really don't have that much money compared to those living along 57th really aren't going to be sticklers for what their new home looks like.
If the primary residential occupants of this tower fall under the "affordable housing candidate" category, then IMO there's no sense in making this look like a cross between a piece of corn on the cob and a vertical interpretation of the Taj Mahal.
So in a way, yes: I'm suggesting that the earning level of tenants in this building has at least something to do with it. By extrapolation, it could be said that the frills we see in this tower are a nod to the status of Nordstrom's. After all, what corporate entity doesn't actually want its center of operations to look the part?

aquablue Jul 9, 2014 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6647712)
I'm saying that affordable housing trends as evinced by Larry's latest West Side foray seems to show me that the nature of the housing project seems directly proportional to the needs of the potential occupants.
I tried to argue in my last post that folks who really don't have that much money compared to those living along 57th really aren't going to be sticklers for what their new home looks like.
If the primary residential occupants of this tower fall under the "affordable housing candidate" category, then IMO there's no sense in making this look like a vertical interpretation of the Taj Mahal.
So in a way, yes: I'm suggesting that the earning level of tenants in this building has at least something to do with it. By extrapolation, it could be said that the frills we see in this tower are a nod to the status of Nordstrom's. After all, what corporate entity doesn't actually want its center of operations to look the part?

Is it official that there is affordable housing in this tower? Otherwise, your argument seems specious.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Jul 9, 2014 8:04 PM

Its still such a mess, looks like a sketch-up pipe dream of some second year architecture student...AS+GG has failed us here and Extell has not delivered....Not as bad as it was but still not good in my books...im gonna try to forget about this one and look forward to the door this tower and others have opened for future development.

Onn Jul 9, 2014 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6647849)
Its still such a mess, looks like a sketch-up pipe dream of some second year architecture student...AS+GG has failed us here and Extell has not delivered....Not as bad as it was but still not good in my books...im gonna try to forget about this one and look forward to the door this tower and others have opened for future development.

You sound like you've gone mad with the design! The design is better than expected, its going to be a classic when finished. It's simple geometric shapes combine together to create a 21st Century landmark tower. This is very characteristic of New York City, nothing shockingly bad about it.

babybackribs2314 Jul 9, 2014 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 6647723)
Is it official that there is affordable housing in this tower? Otherwise, your argument seems specious.

There will be no affordable housing at Nordstrom Tower.

Blaze23 Jul 9, 2014 8:27 PM

There's nothing "mad" about what he said. It's an improvement from earlier renderings, but still an uninspired design by uninspiring architects. I'm not overly displeased with it but this is down the least among the new prominent buildings rising in the city right now.

Onn Jul 9, 2014 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6647892)
There's nothing "mad" about what he said. It's an improvement from earlier renderings, but still an uninspired design by uninspiring architects. I'm not overly displeased with it but this is down the least among the new prominent buildings rising in the city right now.

Yeah there is! Done by "second year architecture students..." Honestly!? Now everyone knows its better than that! I don't know what anyone was expecting, I don't find it uninspiring at all. They came in above expectations...which were already pretty high. Adrian Smith is a highly talented architect. This is the same crap people were talking about with One57, now people can't live without it!

Blaze23 Jul 9, 2014 8:47 PM

Expectation might have a lot to do with it but considering the height, the location and the hype around this building, you can't blame ppl for being disappointed.
As far as AS&GG we will definitely disagree there, they're in no way they're great architects, I was never a fan and this tower further enhanced my opinion of them, they can build tall but that's about it.

JayPro Jul 9, 2014 8:48 PM

You know what? It just may be the case, what with my having forgotten than the address of this tower is indeed 57th.
That said, I tend to think that this tower's fine-tuning in design seems to be more in keeping with the socioeconomic status of tenants that are being sought. Here it's also worth pointing out that all the other giants planned for this strip of real estate have designs that essentially think outside of the box re "boxiness". Any rounded edges? No. Fancy curves? No. Not on any one of them.
IMO Hudson Yards and vicinity is where the next step in genuine innovation in American skyscraper design is really going to manifest itself (i.e. 10 & 30H, Corset, Equinox and Girasole for now). Of course, Lower Manhattan/FiDi saw its piece of the action start with NYBG@8 Spruce. Now it's 56L, and pretty soon 90-94 Fulton, 101 Tribeca and whatever Michael Shvo intentds to knock us of our feet with at 22 Thames.
The relative sobriety to the north, however and for the time being, is something I can't put my finger on. A nod to historic architectural precedence? Maybe. But there seems to be a reason why the 57th Street NKOTB's are striking for their height; but not exactly for what might be called pioneering form.

JayPro Jul 9, 2014 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6647900)
This is the same crap people were talking about with One57, now people can't live without it!

Let me take it one step further with the Twins. Before WTC was built, these two brazen steel monoliths with nary an architectural embellishment on either one stood over Downtown like two basketball players in a room full of jockeys. It came to be that the very qualities for which they were mercilessly panned by critics all around were soon forgotten after 9-11. Every bad word spoken against them seemed to be forgiven and eventual hopes rose that what would rise in their stead would be just as good if not better.

My point here is that all NYC skyscrapers--even the still-maligned MetLife/PanAm building--sooner or later achieved welcome status in the skyline pantheon. This will be no different at the very least. I mean, look at how much earth and rock has been excavated already to give this big baby its proper foundation. Going forward, this will easily take fourth place in terms of watching things happen behind, respectively:

1. The Birth of Hudson Yards

2. The (hopefuly ;) ) eventual completion of WTC (175 & 200G)

and

3. The Rise of 111 W57th. Throw in the eventual greenlighting of MidTown East for good luck........

wilfredo267 Jul 9, 2014 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6647954)
Let me take it one step further with the Twins. Before WTC was built, these two brazen steel monoliths with nary an architectural embellishment on either one stood over Downtown like two basketball players in a room full of jockeys. It came to be that the very qualities for which they were mercilessly panned by critics all around were soon forgotten after 9-11. Every bad word spoken against them seemed to be forgiven and eventual hopes rose that what would rise in their stead would be just as good if not better.

My point here is that all NYC skyscrapers--even the still-maligned MetLife/PanAm building--sooner or later achieved welcome status in the skyline pantheon. This will be no different at the very least. I mean, look at how much earth and rock has been excavated already to give this big baby its proper foundation. Going forward, this will easily take fourth place in terms of watching things happen behind, respectively:

1. The Birth of Hudson Yards

2. The (hopefuly ;) ) eventual completion of WTC (175 & 200G)

and

3. The Rise of 111 W57th. Throw in the eventual greenlighting of MidTown East for good luck........

Well said!:tup:

aquablue Jul 9, 2014 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6647954)
Let me take it one step further with the Twins. Before WTC was built, these two brazen steel monoliths with nary an architectural embellishment on either one stood over Downtown like two basketball players in a room full of jockeys. It came to be that the very qualities for which they were mercilessly panned by critics all around were soon forgotten after 9-11. Every bad word spoken against them seemed to be forgiven and eventual hopes rose that what would rise in their stead would be just as good if not better.

My point here is that all NYC skyscrapers--even the still-maligned MetLife/PanAm building--sooner or later achieved welcome status in the skyline pantheon. This will be no different at the very least. I mean, look at how much earth and rock has been excavated already to give this big baby its proper foundation. Going forward, this will easily take fourth place in terms of watching things happen behind, respectively:

1. The Birth of Hudson Yards

2. The (hopefuly ;) ) eventual completion of WTC (175 & 200G)

and

3. The Rise of 111 W57th. Throw in the eventual greenlighting of MidTown East for good luck........

delete - poor post.

tyleraf Jul 9, 2014 10:18 PM

Wow! I'm glad that this tower is going to be the tallest of the 57th street towers and it won't be just a box. I look forward to seeing the impact it will have on the skyline.

supertallchaser Jul 9, 2014 10:21 PM

can we get a diagram update

JayPro Jul 9, 2014 10:22 PM

Just one quick question: On the diagram that shows the four views, which one---assuming that I'm looking from "southeast" to "northwest" of the diagram---will be the one facing Queens/LI , or perhaps more simply, which direction is the cantilever facing?

PS: Not to be a PITA about it or anything; but if by necessity the diagrams aforementioned had to be drawn at 45ยบ angles, I dare say that any claim that can be be staked along the lines of this being a boxy tower seems a bit of a stretch.

chris08876 Jul 9, 2014 10:25 PM

If complete today, it would rank as the 6th tallest in the world. WTC1 being 5th. What is great about this tower is that it will have the tallest roof height in the West.

hunser Jul 9, 2014 11:12 PM

Another scoop by YIMBY:

Quote:

If my sources are correct this may not be the tallest residential tower for long.
If another tower indeed breaks the 1,776 foot mark, I'll be in skyscraper heaven. Hopefully the roof is over 1,640ft/500m.

:)

PS: my guess is Wanda or Shvo.

NYguy Jul 9, 2014 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6648057)
Just one quick question: On the diagram that shows the four views, which one---assuming that I'm looking from "southeast" to "northwest" of the diagram---will be the one facing Queens/LI , or perhaps more simply, which direction is the cantilever facing?

The cantilever faces the east (Queens direction), while Vornado's 220 CPS is shifted to the west.

Crawford Jul 10, 2014 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6648121)
Another scoop by YIMBY:



If another tower indeed breaks the 1,776 foot mark, I'll be in skyscraper heaven. Hopefully the roof is over 1,640ft/500m.

:)

PS: my guess is Wanda or Shvo.

I'm guessing Durst, Vornado or Shvo. All have big sites along 57th Street that could easily yield supertalls.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 PM.

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