Again, assuming that this is a first view of the official, we should KIM that we're looking at an angled profile; so we have two other sides to judge.
I for one await that opportunity.
The facade from what I observed earlier looks promising. The banding motif at what I assume to be at various setback points is a nice touch.

Uninspired? Add big square windows and it would be a 'masterpiece.'

Again with the cladding. Frankly, I don't see the cladding as that big of a problem. It's the design of the monstrosity. They could clad it in 4 WTC quality glass, and it's still an awful design.


The massing is all wrong. Big squared windows won't help. No irony here.

As I've said, make it a plain box, lose all of the setbacks and cantilevers, or just keep the one cantilever over the landmark and give us a solid base. That would help this thing, but it won't save it. And when viewed from north or south, it will appear the same, just with a wider width.


http://www.citylandnyc.org/wp-conten...215-W-57st.jpg__http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152984358/original.jpg

It's up to Barnett to save this design now.

Just needs a good crown...something like what HY tower 1 has.

FTR I haven't been the only one to suggest that that the glass is--or even can be or could be--a make or break feature.

That said, it seems to me that we're beating each other a bit too vigorously about the head and shoulders over details that (let's be honest) really haven't been resolved yet till one of the parties involved in the design actually comes out and says WYSIWYG.

I wouldn't make this observation if I weren't guilty as charged myself. Perhaps I have been somewhat ham-handed in my approach in making folks who've already passed sentence warm up to what they seem to hate...at least as is.

2¢

Looking at the crazy stuff on ASGG's website, this is elegant and restrained. It doesn't offend...but.....we need more info. I was afraid it would resemble a cheap sci-fi vision of the "future". Count you blessings. :(

I know about the majority of you by now; but here's my problem:

One of these is definitely a clean-up of the CB5 meeting massing model...it just has to be. THe other is supposedly a version that people allegedly close to the design process keep swearing up and down is the working model...Say what you wish about either/or; that's not my point.

It can't be both. The one on the right just cannot have fallen off the face of the planet leaving us with the CB5 "version".

And BTW it's obvious to me that both look rather different, making things curiouser and curiouser...

I suggest that someone from one of the three parties involved with this tower is getting his rocks off trying to instigate a big-ass row on *two* websites with an equally vested interest in this thing's ultimate appearance.

And from the sound of it, this perhaps-unidentified person seems to be succeeding.

Oh, well........

i think im gona piddle myself..

we are lucky to be living in a true renaissance of NYC.

I made a drawing from the render we got. Let me know if anything about the drawing seems incorrect. :)
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=95079

When only the rendering of the base was release and there was already outrage, I decided to not even post a response because I felt that it would've been an unfairly hasty judgment. But now I'm just thinking...really? Like, really?

Every single time I had the chance walk up to Columbus Circle before or after work over the past year, I'd gaze up at One57 and be pleased, and then gaze roughly a block to the east and think "and imagine what's going to go there." And then I would imagine. I'd imagine some ridiculous, grandiose awesomeness.

And now.....well, fucking REALLY? seriously...? Just...what the fuck...really.

This is the first time I'm seeing this building concept. Based on the new drawing, it seems this building needs consistent setbacks rather than the random, uneven setbacks shown which architecturally looks like something a 6 year old could have randomly drew up. To me and most others, good architecture needs to have consistent (often repeating) design elements that show a clear aesthetic goal. There is plenty of time for them to go back to the drawing board.

I think for the scale of the project, the units, and the money involved or that can potentially be generated through sales of units, and by Nordstrom, I don't think we will get anything fancy on the level of detail seen in One57 or Tower Verre. Business will override aesthetics when necessary and this is one of those cases.

Maybe a few tweaks to come for the most recent model, but here are the 57th Street towers:

http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/...psf3652737.jpg

i favor the two on the right

I favor the three on the right.

That's the biggest problem with this thing, since we are going to have the cantilever no matter what (which isn't visible in that diagram for some reason).

The design needs to be much more balanced, the random setbacks, cantilevers, and "nooks" don't create a visually distinctive icon, which it should be as the tallest tower. Say what you will about 432 Park, it has distinctive features.

Now imagine if you will, these words coming from Gary Barnett in reference to this tower:

The cantilever doesn't bother me at all, as it does for some. My problem is that there's nothing inspiring or unique about the facade. Some might like a plain boxy building (which is what this will look like from almost anywhere more than a few blocks away), but when it comes to the tallest building in the city I have to cry foul.

I think Banksy wrote his op-ed on the wrong tower.

I had high hopes for this tower, so I'm disappointed by these images. 111 W 57 is getting a lot of praise, Tower Verre finally getting under way, and 432 Park will soon become impossible to miss, so this tower's designers should realize they have stiff competition. But if the super rich are willing to buy in a tower like this, then I suppose we can't do anything about it. Maybe some bad publicity would be good for them?

Was not the illustration a rough massing model from the presentation that was used to approve the cantilever? l'm curious why people are so upset about a tower that has no official renderings.