Well as upset as I am in the height decrease, If 1089 doesn't need further approval, why not just go for it? that's still very tall, and from the looks of the rendering would make just as much of a skyline impact.

Read my previous post. They're not going for height, but Nouvel is working with a specific program. There has to be a certain amount for the museum expansion and I'm sure there are a minimum number of residences they would like to build.

Look at the difference in the two:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/112696629/original.jpg

you will have to or you will not be posting on this forum. make a comment like that again and you're gone like your friend tranquility.

They look different to me... one appears to have a much taller / more slender top than the other.

Although Amanda Burden is the head of the City Planning Commission - I think it should be noted that it was a unanimous vote to reduce the height by the entire commission.

Other than the height reduction of the tower, the other most disturbing revelation out of this whole ordeal is that the CPC thinks that new buildings shouldn't rival the Empire State in height in midtown. Terrible precedent. I think they will realize this is a mistake in the future...

The model looks that way in the photo because the angle is exaggerated.

The CPC doesn't really issue height restrictions on skyscrapers, but this is one of those cases where the lot wasn't zoned for the building as planned.
The height reduction is a condition of Hines getting those special permits.


The tower loses roughly the top 6 floors, which may not seem like a lot of space, but considering the tapered form the tower has to take,
it will lead to more reduction in the lower floors...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/117140892/original.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/117140872/original.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/117140884/original.jpg

Those diagrams probably fueled the NIMBY fire. For the record, they are distortions; elevational drawings which disregard perspective and point of view. In reality, Tower Verre would never appear to be so tall next to the Empire State Building, because the two are almost 20 blocks apart. You would also struggle to find anyplace where you could get a really clear view looking straight North at the two buildings like that.

That graphic was just done for scale comparisons. They've just squeezed the Avenues together to give a representation of the skyline.

An article in the Times yesterday, which I can't find on the web right now, got it exactly right - the city is turning the skyline into a mausoleum.

So I guess it'll be shorter than Conde and BofA Tower if you count the spires?

Consider it will be as tall (roughly) as the spire of the NYTT.

If only that was true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Older, more classy buildings are one by one replaced by more banal and many cases, ugly new buildings with exposed floorplates, AC vents, cheap wiggly glass, balconies, blank walls, etc. Stuff you don't even see in third world countries now.

With a few exceptions, most of the new stuff are poorer in design and material than those found in many other cities.

If the new stuff we're getting now is what the future holds, then give me 1939 New York instead.

What is so sad is that none of those ugly-ass buildings face any obstacles from anyone but the minute someone proposes something beautiful, everyone and their uncle comes out against it.

The stupid people of this city don't deserve this tower. Hines should build a squat box and be done with it. Sick of this city already.

Build it all, or not at all. That remains my opinion. I'd rather the tower not be built than be butchered.

That's a stubborn view point. I'd rather have a redesigned 1050 ft building than no building at all.What does building nothing do for the skyline?

What does building a gimped version of a beautiful building do? Accepting glass in place of a diamond is now a reasonable trade?

move.

Trust me, I would love to see this project at full height, but I'll take a nice re-design over nothing. Many buildings have been proposed and redesigned for various reasons before being built, and most people never even noticed. I'm sure it will be tastefully done. If they can design a nice, unique, building once, I'm sure they can do it again. Only this time it will HAVE to be 200 ft shorter. There is nothing anyone can do now.

Posted a couple of pages before this one

They got in right in that this type of action would turn the city into a living museum, and some would have it no other way. However, there is a limit to what the Planning Commision can do in regards to architecture and height. This tower just happens to be in a position where its at the whim of the CPC and what they deem "acceptable" architecture. Which is maddening when you consider all of the other things that have risen and will rise, this is one tower that is truly perfect for New York and the skyline. Why mess with perfection?

Don't worry, a lot of good people have. I'm already out.

^ Let's stay on topic.

Here's an idea of how a 1,050 ft Tower Verrre would stack up among the "second place" towers of Midtown...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/117190492/original.jpg

This is actually a good point, since I'd rather them never tear another building down and never build another one than tear down so many great pre-WWII buildings in exchange for building some great skyscrapers. So in fact, it's worse than a mausoleum - what's famous is stubbornly insisted on never being upstaged, while everything that's small, relatively unknown, and at the same time beautiful architecture, is getting torn down for condos.