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)

NYguy Nov 24, 2014 3:06 AM

The folks at cityrealty.com did a good job putting those renders together, and yes, there are still quite a few towers missing (a lot of the Hudson Yards, Downtown towers like 101 Warren, 56 Leonard, Brooklyn's Domino and Greenpoint towers, the skyscraper boom in Long Island City, which isn't visible from that point, etc.)

As for the concern about the total number of ultra-luxury units dropping on the market, here's a look at the Nordstrom, and some of the other upcoming projects, and total units each will have via DOB permits...(also included is 432 Park for comparison)


NORDSTROM TOWER - 199


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333035/original.jpg


111 W. 57TH STREET - 55


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333036/original.jpg


432 PARK AVENUE - 104


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333037/original.jpg


TOWER VERRE - 180


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333038/original.jpg


220 CENTRAL PARK SOUTH - 173


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333039/original.jpg


101 MURRAY STREET - 139


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333040/original.jpg


520 PARK AVENUE - 39



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333041/original.jpg

Crawford Nov 24, 2014 5:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparkling (Post 6818455)
Awesome job! Whoever put the effort-kudos to him/her! And pretty soon these may be outdated if the plans for 31 west 57th and Roseland Ballroom (to name a few) go ahead ( even 56 Leonard is missing)

Lots of buildings are missing. It isn't some comprehensive list.

NYguy Nov 24, 2014 1:37 PM

Yeah, some things are missing, mostly in the Hudson Yards, most of which we don't know what looks like anyway.

But it is a very comprehensive look at most of the skyline changers. We know the depictions are not 100%.

Some commentary on the graphic below...

https://www.facebook.com/NYPost/phot...levant_count=1



https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...11/skyline.jpg
http://nypost.com/2014/11/22/how-new...-look-in-2018/

hunser Nov 24, 2014 3:07 PM

^ I know we skyscraper fans have a different view and opinion on skyscrapers than the general public. But I just can't stand the comments saying "thin and ugly". Thin? I say finally some new peaks! Back to the roots! Have they never seen any pictures of the 1920/30s sykline? Chrysler, 40 Wall, 70 Pine (just to name a few) are thin and tall. And ugly? Of course that remains subjective. But towers like Tower Verre and 111 West will become one of the most beautiful buildings not only in New York, but in the world. Maybe people need to see proper renderings (or later the real thing) before judging too harshly.

chris08876 Nov 24, 2014 3:33 PM

I wish I could be teleported back to the 30's to see the skyline in its glory. What we are entering is the next phase of a great transformation. There will always be critics, but often once things start to go up, they are quickly shushed, and instead, fall in love. Remember how many forumers for example didn't like 432 Park Ave? And then.... once it started rising they began to love it. The same will occur with all of these supertalls. I am really looking forward to 111 W. 57th. Its so think that its incredible. Makes 432 Park Ave look bulky. It could be that overtime these towers grow on the population. At first change can be hard to accept, but overtime, there seems to be some sort of acceptance, and this grows to an enjoyment.

TonyNYC Nov 24, 2014 4:57 PM

Some of these buildings will be making their presents felt well before 2018.

Few comments...NYC 2018

1 -Empire still owns the area around 34th St.

2 -I don't see 15 Penn going up anytime soon.

3- 1 WTC desperately needs a few bigger towers around it.. especially 2 WTC. It looks alone downtown.

4- 57th Street...Billions Row...INSANE!!

5- We need a Hudson Spire ...1,500ft or taller!!

6- Tower Verre, 1 Vanderbilt, 111 & 217 W 57, All Stern Buildings...can't wait!

7- Like NY Guy said...don't forget LIC, Greenpoint, Williamsburg and Downtown Brooklyn


NYC 2018....AWESOME!!!

NYC GUY Nov 24, 2014 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyNYC (Post 6819070)
Some of these buildings will be making their presents felt well before 2018.

Few comments...NYC 2018

1 -Empire still owns the area around 34th St.

2 -I don't see 15 Penn going up anytime soon.

3- 1 WTC desperately needs a few bigger towers around it.. especially 2 WTC. It looks alone downtown.

4- 57th Street...Billions Row...INSANE!!

5- We need a Hudson Spire ...1,500ft or taller!!

6- Tower Verre, 1 Vanderbilt, 111 & 217 W 57, All Stern Buildings...can't wait!

7- Like NY Guy said...don't forget LIC, Greenpoint, Williamsburg and Downtown Brooklyn


NYC 2018....AWESOME!!!

Just think we already have a good amount of buildings done or under unconstruction.
All that's done so far is:
1WTC:tup:
4WTC:tup:
One57:tup:

Now under construction
432 Park (Although it's topped out):)
3 WTC:)
10 Hudson:)
30 Hudson:)
Nordstrom:)
Tower Verre(I think it's in prep):)
220 Central:)
56 Leonard:)
30 Park Place:)

2018 this cities going to be a forest of cranes:)
Not to mention Jersey City also has some possible proposals.

hunser Nov 24, 2014 8:54 PM

^ There are many more! (see my sig)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6818948)
I wish I could be teleported back to the 30's to see the skyline in its glory. What we are entering is the next phase of a great transformation. There will always be critics, but often once things start to go up, they are quickly shushed, and instead, fall in love. Remember how many forumers for example didn't like 432 Park Ave? And then.... once it started rising they began to love it. The same will occur with all of these supertalls. I am really looking forward to 111 W. 57th. Its so think that its incredible. Makes 432 Park Ave look bulky. It could be that overtime these towers grow on the population. At first change can be hard to accept, but overtime, there seems to be some sort of acceptance, and this grows to an enjoyment.

Well put. Change frightens people, but in the end it's inevitable. :yes:

NYguy Nov 25, 2014 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyNYC (Post 6819070)
2 -I don't see 15 Penn going up anytime soon.

Obviously not, with the hotel still standing in place. But 15 Penn Plaza was actually the first tower on the west side to get a signature tenant (though only briefly) and was moving forward to being built. We know what happened after that. The tower lost a little momentum when Vornado shelved it, but the only reason they brought it back is because of tenant interest. More on that discussion in the 15 Penn thread.


November 24, 2014


The Arts Students League in protected mode...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158348029/original.jpg

ChiTownWonder Nov 25, 2014 1:32 PM

Crazy, i visited New York last spring and even now with 432 park it looks different, midtown will surly be a sight to see in a decade or so

photoLith Nov 25, 2014 4:37 PM

^
Wow does that historic building next door have all that scaffolding built over it to protect it from falling debris and possible collapsing tower cranes?

chris08876 Nov 25, 2014 5:21 PM

Maybe for protection against the guy in a bathrobe across the street with a telescope spying on them; trying to steal their art ideas while making condescending remarks. :sly:

TBone7281 Nov 26, 2014 11:57 AM

It's amazing how "commonplace" supertalls in NYC will become in the not too distant future. :cheers:

NYguy Nov 26, 2014 1:56 PM

^ Over a century ago, it was NY alone that played this game with "tall" buildings, eventually leading to the supertall.

But today we can witness this game played all around the world, with towers being built taller and taller. The city may not "flirt" with the world's tallest title any longer, but the game of building high and higher is back. We get to witness what we probably never thought we would, the city in full "I can build taller than your tower" mode. And true, it may lessen the significance of the "supertall" on the skyline, but it's great to watch.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U0FjSuX9mM...600/1-Scan.jpg
http://blog.insidetheapple.net/2014_01_01_archive.html



Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 6820412)
^
Wow does that historic building next door have all that scaffolding built over it to protect it from falling debris and possible collapsing tower cranes?


You can read a little about that below...



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387267/original.jpg

NYguy Nov 26, 2014 7:33 PM

Brandon Nagle


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ahMA3_GT6L...0/IMG_2950.JPG

Guiltyspark Nov 29, 2014 3:43 PM

A decade ago there were only a few supertalls (300m+) in the world (27). Two decades ago in 1994 when I was a kid and my interest in skyscrapers was just getting started, there were 13. If you look at the completed or UC towers, right now there are at least 197 (rough count) skyscrapers 300m or taller. To me, "supertall" status means almost nothing anymore as far as height goes. Really to make a splash height wise a tower needs to be a megatall these days.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of these supertalls are great towers, I just dont oooh and aaah over them purely because they passed 300m anymore. 500m on the other hand... now that is something to be impressed by these days.

TLDR version: 500m is the new 300m.

Zapatan Nov 29, 2014 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6825118)
A decade ago there were only a few supertalls (300m+) in the world (27). Two decades ago in 1994 when I was a kid and my interest in skyscrapers was just getting started, there were 13. If you look at the completed or UC towers, right now there are at least 197 (rough count) skyscrapers 300m or taller. To me, "supertall" status means almost nothing anymore as far as height goes. Really to make a splash height wise a tower needs to be a megatall these days.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of these supertalls are great towers, I just dont oooh and aaah over them purely because they passed 300m anymore. 500m on the other hand... now that is something to be impressed by these days.

TLDR version: 500m is the new 300m.


I agree, but 500m is still pretty rare in the world these days outside of somewhere like China. In any case this building is likely to be about 500 meters to the roof (A little less)

To me these days a super tall is a building of at least 350 meters to the roof, perhaps 400, So NY will still have plenty.

NYguy Nov 29, 2014 6:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6825118)
A decade ago there were only a few supertalls (300m+) in the world (27). Two decades ago in 1994 when I was a kid and my interest in skyscrapers was just getting started, there were 13. If you look at the completed or UC towers, right now there are at least 197 (rough count) skyscrapers 300m or taller. To me, "supertall" status means almost nothing anymore as far as height goes. Really to make a splash height wise a tower needs to be a megatall these days.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of these supertalls are great towers, I just dont oooh and aaah over them purely because they passed 300m anymore. 500m on the other hand... now that is something to be impressed by these days.


Well, I disagree with that. There are a lot of supertalls being built around the world, but when you look at where most of them are being built, the supertall is still very impressive, as a lot of these places don't even have towers approaching that height, and suddenly there's a sueprtall to be reckoned with.

But for me, at a certain point, the growing height of the supertall becomes redundant, and doesn't make sense, especially from a "view" point of view (what exactly will you be looking at from 2,000 ft?)

And then, there are a few places (like NY), where the supertalls are being built in bigger numbers if not heights. These buildings will take on the characteristics of buildings like the Empire State and the WTC, being visible from many miles away and altering the skyline. The sheer impact of the numbers alone are such that even a 2,000 ft tower in Manhattan, while more visible than the others, won't have a much greater impact, though it would still be impressive. I still haven't adjusted to 432 Park on the skyline, how tall it is.

And my final point about the supertall, as a result of these towers being mostly identified with the "great" cities in the past, location sometimes makes them all the more impressive (Imagine placing one of the 2,000 ft towers in London for example). To me, towers like the Burj and coming Kingdom towers are impressive feats of construction and engineering, but beyond that, not so much. They could just as well be on the moon.

The Nordstrom tower, while it may not match the quality in design of buildings like the Tower Verre, or 111 W. 57th St (from what we've seen so far), will still be a commanding tower in Manhattan. The result will be an exciting skyline, more so than we or anyone else has witnessed it before.

chris08876 Nov 29, 2014 8:01 PM

Location is what its about. Here, supertalls are being built amongst a sea of towers. A lot of the megatalls are isolated; often built on megablocks that are devoid of an urban feeling with the surrounding landscape having much shorter towers. It doesn't look good. Sure a 2000 foot tower in China is awesome, but if its built in a field next to a bunch of four story homes (check the China supertall thread in SSC to know what I mean), it looks terrible and very dystopian. I'll take an NYC supertall anyday then a megatall built in a field or desert with nothing around it. How it's integrated into the urban fabric is key. Plus, a megatall has the potential to ruin a skyline when the nearest structure is a 1000+ feet shorter. I personally would rather have a gradual progression so that aesthetics is preserved and that's just whats occuring. With the progression of 400m towers in Midtown, a 600m would begin to look good instead of sticking out obnoxiously. Thats down the line for now. So in summary, while a megatall can be nice, there needs to be some sort of balance in order to preserve such an iconic skyline.

BrownTown Nov 30, 2014 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6825118)
Don't get me wrong. A lot of these supertalls are great towers, I just dont oooh and aaah over them purely because they passed 300m anymore. 500m on the other hand... now that is something to be impressed by these days.

It's impressive in terms of rarity, but it's pretty counterproductive in terms of the original point of skyscrapers (fitting more floorspace into a given lot). When these buildings get so tall that over half of each floor is just columns and elevators then it stops making any sort of economic sense and is purely for showmanship. To some they might be impressive in terms of height, but to me they are just impressive in terms of wasted money. I think more reasonable tower shapes like 10 and 30 Hudson Yards are much more impressive than simply going for height with no regard to proportion or economics.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 PM.

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