SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Zerton Oct 23, 2017 3:45 PM

If the developer is Chinese, expect 20 additional floors. :haha:

Agreed - 131 seems exaggerated.

NYguy Oct 23, 2017 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 7961851)
If the developer is Chinese, expect 20 additional floors. :haha:

Agreed - 131 seems exaggerated.

Not really. Given the height, they could easily go 150 floors, for a residential building.

Skyguy_7 Oct 24, 2017 12:12 AM

It’s 131. Actual floors. I was speaking to an architect on this project last week about it. He also said the spire has zero chance of coming back into the design. It was a choice made by the design team after negative chatter regarding the 1,775’ number and apparent one-uppsmanship. They wanted nothing to do with dethroning the Freedom Tower. The cost savings was just a nice perk.

NYguy Oct 24, 2017 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7962532)
It’s 131. Actual floors.

It doesn't have 131 actual floors though. The actual number of floors can be found in the DOB permits...(98 floors)
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01


You can also get a floor-by-floor breakdown in the Schedule A
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES311522900





rkemalbum

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/3...e887cdb4_h.jpg

Skyguy_7 Oct 24, 2017 12:38 AM

^Hmm. The guy smeed to know what he was taking about :shrug: I should have grilled him more.

NYguy Oct 24, 2017 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7962555)
^Hmm. The guy smeed to know what he was taking about :shrug: I should have grilled him more.

It's the "mystique" of 131 floors I guess. But these days, both office buildings and residential buildings "bloat" the number of floors due to the extra height of modern office floors or luxury residential towers. That may be understandable, but it doesn't cut it with DOB though. The information has to be accurate and exact.

gramsjdg Oct 25, 2017 2:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7962532)
It was a choice made by the design team after negative chatter regarding the 1,775’ number and apparent one-uppsmanship. They wanted nothing to do with dethroning the Freedom Tower. The cost savings was just a nice perk.


Now that's just plain insulting. Durst dethroned (and uglified) WTC-1 before it was even finished. I've said this countless times before but Durst's decision to remove the architectural radome that made the spire a spire in the first place leaves WTC-1 a 1373 foot tower and currently 4th tallest in the US.
CTBUH can say what it wants (caving as it did to "the Freedom Tower must be 1776' and tallest" BS), but it doesn't change the truth that the spantenna on top of WTC-1 is not a spire (by CTBUH's own rules!), it is a guyed mast with no architectural elements except for the beacon housing.

The most despicable case of value engineering in history

tjr101 Oct 28, 2017 2:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7964086)
Now that's just plain insulting. Durst dethroned (and uglified) WTC-1 before it was even finished. I've said this countless times before but Durst's decision to remove the architectural radome that made the spire a spire in the first place leaves WTC-1 a 1373 foot tower and currently 4th tallest in the US.
CTBUH can say what it wants (caving as it did to "the Freedom Tower must be 1776' and tallest" BS), but it doesn't change the truth that the spantenna on top of WTC-1 is not a spire (by CTBUH's own rules!), it is a guyed mast with no architectural elements except for the beacon housing.

The most despicable case of value engineering in history

I couldn't agree more. One WTC is a complete disappointment and with its exaggerated antenna they're bending the rules for to call a spire. And to the tip is not even 1776 but 1792. The true tallest in NYC IMO is 432 Park and the Willis Tower is still the tallest in the US. One World Trade was a missed opportunity.

NYguy Oct 28, 2017 2:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjr101 (Post 7968034)
I couldn't agree more. One WTC is a complete disappointment and with its exaggerated antenna they're bending the rules for to call a spire. And to the tip is not even 1776 but 1792. The true tallest in NYC IMO is 432 Park and the Willis Tower is still the tallest in the US. One World Trade was a missed opportunity.

As horrible as the "spirit is, it's still the tallest. There's no debate about that. The actual height is another matter, but in either case, it would be the tallest. Central Park Tower will be the tallest in the US by roof height, unless or untill something with a higher roof comes along.



lensepix

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4456/3...b55d56b2_k.jpg



https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4512/3...f207d711_k.jpg

NYguy Oct 30, 2017 12:31 AM

jon mannion

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4454/2...6af8e0fa_k.jpg

artspook Oct 31, 2017 8:52 AM

"the spantenna on top of WTC-1" - gramsjdg

spantenna, that word always makes me laugh . .
but 1792, 1776, 1373 . . so what ! . .
doesn't change the height of the actual building for me . .
actually, the preposterous post 9-11 fake-news height-contest,
that made the gangling, outsized monster-spantenna happen, was worth it . .
'cause having this steampunk-ish "spantenna", is way better, than not having it . .

without it, 1WTC would be more boring and less focal . .
usually "more is more", when considering crowns for tall towers . .
(except on minimally "less is more" rectilinear structures . .
like old WTC, Secretariat, Trump-UN, etc.)
but at that historical time, we needed this exagerated-type of "More" confidence . .

the 1WTC radome-covered "spire" version didn't look any better, really . .
It was still spantenna-grade in my book . .
sorta like an overly simplified, elongated pointy lozenge-shaped whatchamacallit . . reminding one of a streamlined, mid-century cheap-plastic fishing-line float . .
or perhaps a white polyethylene ice-cream-machine wand in a DQ (dairy queen) . .
it didn't look very architectural . . or at all integrated with the rest of the building . .

I loved the now-scrapped antenna, designed for this CPT building SO much though . .
it pulled the entire unresolved mediocre mass beneath it,
emphatically right up into the sky and defined this building's exact purpose . .
a 21st century asymmetrical architectural-form of a great city soaring . .
all from being "deco-fied" by its modern deco-ish crown ornament . .
an architecturally ennobling shape of crossbars . .
that fit so perfectly into the crown's NE corner niche . .
not about dethrowning anything . . tallest in its own right, 1775 (or whatever number)
. . no few extra feet of spantenna needed to be tallest in America . .
Chinese buyers may not like that type of NYC confidence crowning "their" building . .
but most of us New Yorkers do ! . .

gramsjdg Oct 31, 2017 6:00 PM

Don't get me wrong, I agree the WTC-1 design needs a spire, which it will have if a future building manager decides to actually complete construction.

Absent any major crown decoration, CPT needs one too, (height competition aside)

TonyL Nov 1, 2017 10:44 AM

Unfortunately, the symbolism of WTC1 is going to restrain future development in NYC for at least the next 50 years in my opinion. No developer is going to want to dethrone WTC1 but as we can all see with current construction, space demands require creeping higher and higher. 7 years ago, no one was building anything close to 1,400 feet except WTC1. Now we have at least 3 towers exceeding that height, possibly 4 if 80 South Park St ever gets approved. It is inevitable that towers will climb higher and approach 1,776 eventually in NYC. Now I also believe the US will eventually see it's first 2000 foot tower and I also believe that Chicago is going to likely be the one to pull it off. Chicago doesn't have that "respectful fist bump" to WTC1 that NYC seems to have to deal with. Now the good news is that what is going on with WTC1 is simply a gentlemens agreement of sorts. It's not enacted into law like DC has with no buildings being higher than the Washington Monument or the street width to building height ratio. As a result of that law, DC is forever left with high rises. But there is always someone looking to skirt any rule and even law. Even though Rosslyn, VA is within sight of the Washington Monument and only across the river, there are several towers there over 300 feet when the DC itself has a law of only 130 feet.

Crawford Nov 1, 2017 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyL (Post 7972174)
Unfortunately, the symbolism of WTC1 is going to restrain future development in NYC for at least the next 50 years in my opinion.

Given we have already had taller proposals than 1 WTC, this makes no sense. Hudson Spire was 1,800 ft, and proposal was released about a year after completion of 1 WTC.

Developers will build what makes the most sense. They don't have SSP-style height considerations. This is a very niche, SSP-nerd discussion.

TonyL Nov 1, 2017 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 7972187)
Given we have already had taller proposals than 1 WTC, this makes no sense. Hudson Spire was 1,800 ft, and proposal was released about a year after completion of 1 WTC.

Developers will build what makes the most sense. They don't have SSP-style height considerations. This is a very niche, SSP-nerd discussion.

I am talking about approved and constructed buildings. Not proposals. Developers can propose anything they want. But actually seeing something approved and constructed is a different matter. Who was the guy proposing that upside down U a few months back? Doesn't mean it ever gets approved and constructed. As far as the "nerd" discussion. We are here discussing architecture and building height right? Probably not the most mainstream topic drawing the average persons interest so yea, you have to admit there is likely a nerdy component to it. But still interesting none the less.

NYguy Nov 2, 2017 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyL (Post 7972174)
Unfortunately, the symbolism of WTC1 is going to restrain future development in NYC for at least the next 50 years in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyL (Post 7972192)
I am talking about approved and constructed buildings. Not proposals. Developers can propose anything they want. But actually seeing something approved and constructed is a different matter.


NONE of that makes any sense. I'll just assume you are not aware of how or why things get built in New York.

The biggest deterrent to anything taller than the Freedom Tower getting built is financing. Plain and simple. Developers can't just say "I want to build a taller tower, and thus it is so". Money talks.



https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba6uHKaH...-by=cityrealty

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram...NzU1OA%3D%3D.2



https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram...NzQ3Mg%3D%3D.2

Crawford Nov 2, 2017 1:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyL (Post 7972192)
I am talking about approved and constructed buildings. Not proposals. Developers can propose anything they want. But actually seeing something approved and constructed is a different matter.

1 WTC was completed only four years ago. Because no actually taller building has been constructed in the ensuing four years (even though a tower u/c comes possibly within one foot and at least two additional proposals have gone even higher) you conclude that there will be no such buildings for 50 years.

Sorry, but no. Non-logic. We have no idea what will occur in the next 50 years, but, whatever happens, it will be determined by bank financing and profitability, not some "gentleman's agreement" on building height. NYC developers may be many things, but they aren't "gentlemen".

TonyL Nov 2, 2017 1:42 PM

You fellas do realize we are having this discussion on a thread where the developer removed a spire after hearing negative chatter about it approaching 1776 right? That would kinda support what I am saying. Either way, I can certainly respect and appreciate all opinions. I am not the kind of guy who insists my opinion is the correct one. This world would be pretty freakin boring if we all agreed on everything. Anywho, back to this tower.

Prezrezc Nov 2, 2017 1:57 PM

This is a supertower that can be described thus:

A spire or not actually makes less than zero difference. Valid arguments can be made for and against both possibilities.

I'm just gratified to see what's unfolding given the protracted drama that gave birth to it.

Crawford Nov 2, 2017 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyL (Post 7973564)
You fellas do realize we are having this discussion on a thread where the developer removed a spire after hearing negative chatter about it approaching 1776 right?

This isn't true. It was someone on this thread speculating.

Developers don't care about this kind of stuff. We are in a very specific bubble on SSP, and 99.9% of people don't care about this stuff.

While I have no inside info on this project, I guarantee Barnett isn't sweating over building heights. He might not even know the exact building height of his own buildings.

If there's a spire, or no spire, I am totally certain that 1 WTC plays no role whatsoever. Barnett will do whatever he thinks makes him the most money.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.