Creeping up on the skyline...


jaeseung

https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8741/2...fbdcee39_k.jpg

Jesus, this thing is going to be ugly. Such a shame given the incredible location.

It won't be ugly just underwhelming but yeah, one day we'll see the models of the other much better designs that Adrian Smith came up with that Gary rejected. :hell:

It'll be heartbreaking. :(

What is it,t hat you guys dislike about this design?

For me, there's no wow factor in the design, other than it being tall. The blankwall is a huge negative. The transition from the wide base to the thin tower lacks any skill or grace.

http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...hattan-Day.jpg

I have a few issues with this design, but the biggest one at this point is the way the tower tops off. Even One Vanderbilt, (which I find acceptable, but a little off), reaches it's summit in a way I find befitting of New York.

This tower just seems to stop with no flair about it at all. It's a monumental tower, one that should proclaim itself that way on the skyline. Yet it ends with a dud. Wouldn't be as big a problem for me if it weren't not one of the tallest, but THE tallest to roof height in all of New York City. The same town where the crown of the Tower Verre (53W53) was deemed unacceptable to be in the same "air space" as the Empire State.

I think the glass will look nice, and there will be some nice details about it. But skyline-wise, I don't like it much. King Kong would probably look the other way. :)


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/163576417/large.jpg

I agree with you, NYguy. :fireworks:

As you always should, lol.

I especially love the giant blank wall at the base. A classy touch to the tallest building in the city.

They should let the artists next door create a big mural on that ugly wall.

The facade is not as bad as some have mentioned.
Here is the tower profile:

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/img/...trom-Tower.png

Yes, via the latest renders, the façade looks great- but this needs the spire back and/or a proper crown (which would push the roof/parapet height past 1600'). In my opinion, either a 90 foot lighted crown making this an even 500 meters to the roof (1640') or the original ~300' spire(a REAL spire as opposed to the WTC-1 travesty) pushing the height to 1850'.

It really needs a distinguished top. I still find it hard to believe they will leave that wall blank. We'll see.

^

I wonder if perhaps there's a practical nature to the blank wall -
I work for an artist who's expecting a small tower to rise next to his studio building. He's planning to negotiate with the contractors to face the blank lot-wall with bright, reflective plaster, to maximize the sunlight through our skylights. Perhaps the Art Students League asked for something similar.

Also, a mural, living wall, etc. would probably cast discolored light into their studios, which would cause real problems for anyone trying to accurately mix paint.

No, the wall will not be blank. Gary will post tower's missing official render on it.....

That's another thing. There is still no render on site. Gary Barnett previously stated that if there were no cantilver, that entire eastern side would be a blank wall. Maybe they are expecting income from advertising on that wall as its shown now, though I doubt the city would allow something like that.

Credit: Nikolai (yimby)

Note: 220 CPS and CPT. 220CPS is not part of CPT although it looks like the two are merging.
https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t5...ODM4Nw%3D%3D.2

Hi guys!

There is the progress in the construction during the month of June.

• Video Link

Thank you!!!

Pretty good film, just a few suggestions for next month:

• More accurate thumbnail (you showed the old render with the spire)
• Add some commentary (always nice to hear your voice)
• Add some video footage and combine it with photos

Overall, nice short production.
My fav shot was from Central Park. :tup:

We'll take it in LA if you don't want it:)