SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

NYguy Mar 5, 2015 6:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6936815)
I get the antenna being stupid, but what else could anyone do differently? The base and the cantilever are practical necessities given the dual nature of this design as both a Nordstrom store and a high end residential tower. If you can come up with a better design for the plot of land this is on then i'd like to hear it.

If you can't think of a better idea, then that's your problem. People have looked at the massing, decided they didn't like it, and would certainly know what they liked if they did see it. As far as the cantilever goes, Barnett himself said it wasn't necessary, so there's that.

When renderings are revealed, more people may find that they like the tower, or maybe not. But that's what they are here to discuss. If you like the tower as is, that's perfectly fine. No one's going to throw you off a cliff. And if you don't want to read criticisms of the building, then don't.

BrownTown Mar 5, 2015 7:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6938291)
If you can't think of a better idea, then that's your problem.

No, it's not my problem because I like the massing. What makes no sense is people who DON'T like the massing but can't explain what they want to change. Apparently everyone here likes absurd pencils for buildings which is their opinion, but since this building CAN'T have a pencil thin base due to the department store located there people are going to have to compromise. All I ask is for someone to explain their problem with the tower and how it could be fixed. So far the only answer I see is to remove the antenna. The cantilever argument is debatable, but keep in mind that nobody will be able to see the cantilever unless they are right there at the base. For the skyline it will be obscured by all the other buildings around it.

599GTO Mar 5, 2015 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6936619)
I just don't get how people can look at a building where their entire life's work wouldn't even be enough to buy the cheapest unit and call it "cheap". What the hell do people want from these towers? To be clad in gold? People need to live in reality and the reality is that the building boom in NYC now is probably the most exciting in our lives. If that's not enough for you then nothing ever will be.

People simply want beautiful, exciting buildings. I'm in Abu Dhabi right now, and there is no reason New York can not put up curvy and striking sky-scraping towers like they do in this part of the world. Stop excusing architectural mediocrity. New York of course, beats the pants out of any of these cities thanks to its old buildings, but in terms of new design, New York/America is rather boring in comparison. This site and this height calls for something stunning, but i'm convinced this building will be another tall mediocre box.

ATLksuGUY Mar 5, 2015 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO (Post 6938385)
People simply want beautiful, exciting buildings. I'm in Abu Dhabi right now, and there is no reason New York can not put up curvy and striking sky-scraping towers like they do in this part of the world. Stop excusing architectural mediocrity. New York of course, beats the pants out of any of these cities thanks to its old buildings, but in terms of new design, New York/America is rather boring in comparison. This site and this height calls for something stunning, but i'm convinced this building will be another tall mediocre box.

I'm sorry (well not really), but you are just ignorant of reality. Buildings in NYC are built due to more stringent market demands and real NEED for office space and living space. It is a city that literally NEEDS to go up for more space, not the same in Abu Dhabi. Towers in NYC are built to make the most of squared/rectangular office blocks and maximizing air rights to which are assigned to properties and therefore the massing is somewhat dictated by those rules/rights. There's actually something quite beautiful about a city built for needs/purpose rather than just whatever someone can afford. There is a sense of purpose that makes it rather striking. Keep your Abu Dhabi where it is, I prefer NY.

NYguy Mar 5, 2015 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6938328)
No, it's not my problem because I like the massing. What makes no sense is people who DON'T like the massing but can't explain what they want to change.


Plenty of people, myself included, have discussed what they don't like about it and what they want to change. If you read this thread, you've seen that. But again, even if they didn't know exaclty what they don't like about it - if they say they don't like it, believe them.


Quote:

Apparently everyone here likes absurd pencils for buildings which is their opinion,
As "absurd" is apparently yours.


Quote:

since this building CAN'T have a pencil thin base due to the department store located there people are going to have to compromise.
Having a "pencil thin base" is hardly a requirement of decent design. That you can't comprehend that tells me you probably won't comprehend any other "explanation" people may have for why they don't like what they've seen so far. You'll simply have to get over it.

Crawford Mar 5, 2015 3:18 PM

Let's wait until we get a rendering from the developer. I don't see the point in arguing over details when we don't yet have official renderings.

NYguy Mar 5, 2015 6:27 PM

Had to delete multiple posts, so that all involved may take the time to reflect on the absurdity of the fighting here (and also the off topic ranting).




http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=02


Quote:

03/06/2015

INSTALLATION OF A DUAL 6000LB CAPACITY PERSONNEL/MATERIAL HOIST DURING NEW BUILDING CONST, FILED SEPARATELY. HOIST SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER #33 OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE. NO CHANGE IN USE, OCCUPANCY OR EGRESS UNDER THIS APPLICATION. ELEVATOR APPLICATION SUBMITTED SEPARATELY TO ELEVATOR DIVISION. HOIST SHALL SERVICE SUB CELLAR 2 TO GROUND FLOOR.


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

03/06/2015

INSTALLATION OF A SYSTEM SCAFFOLD STAIR TOWER AS PER DRAWINGS. SYSTEM SCAFFOLD STAIR TOWER SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER #33 OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE



http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

03/11/2015

STORAGE OF MATERIAL/EQUIPMENT ON TOP OF HEAVY DUTY SIDEWALK SHED DURING NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FILED SEPARATELY. SIDEWALK SHED DESIGNED FOR 475 PSF FILED UNDER SEPARATE APPLICATION.


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

03/11/2015

INSTALLATION OF 170 LINEAR FEET OF HEAVY DUTY SIDEWALK SHED DURING NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,

gramsjdg Mar 25, 2015 3:06 PM

OK, we're at the end of Q1 and still nothing from Extell. Anybody have any updates?

Zapatan Mar 25, 2015 3:13 PM

We better be in for a good surprise... don't want any let downs :)

Onn Mar 25, 2015 5:15 PM

I don't know, its pretty much the biggest project under construction in the city right now. I assume Extell knows this is going to be the second tallest building on at least three continents, its a tall order to fill. :)

I'm guessing Barnett is keeping this one well locked up for a reason, probably to make sure none of his competitors know how tall the tower truly is. Reminds me of when the Burj Khalifa was built, designed by none other than Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill.

Zapatan Mar 25, 2015 5:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6964369)
I don't know, its pretty much the biggest project under construction in the city right now. I assume Extell knows this is going to be the second tallest building on at least three continents, its a tall order to fill. :)

I'm guessing Barnett is keeping this one well locked up for a reason, probably to make sure none of his competitors know how tall the tower truly is.

well, highest by roof anywhere outside Asia (Dubai is Asia) ... by pinnacle it more or less ties WTC for tallest building outside Asia.

While we don't know the final roof height I can't imagine they won't top the neighboring ~1400' buildings so I think there is a chance this could reach 1500'

Onn Mar 25, 2015 5:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6964406)
While we don't know the final roof height I can't imagine they won't top the neighboring ~1400' buildings so I think there is a chance this could reach 1500'

I think the roof its going to be north of 1,500 feet, and could be up to 1,550 feet even. But I guess we'll have to wait to see.

gramsjdg Mar 25, 2015 5:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6964406)
well, highest by roof anywhere outside Asia (Dubai is Asia) ... by pinnacle it more or less ties WTC for tallest building outside Asia.

While we don't know the final roof height I can't imagine they won't top the neighboring ~1400' buildings so I think there is a chance this could reach 1500'

That's what I'm thinking... with 111 now at 1424 ft plus having a stunning design, Barnett is going to go as high as possible with this one, hopefully taking it from 1490 to at least 1550 and push the spire to ~1850 surpassing WTC 1 and CN Tower in one swoop. :yes:

alex1217 Mar 25, 2015 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6964424)
That's what I'm thinking... with 111 now at 1424 ft plus having a stunning design, Barnett is going to go as high as possible with this one, hopefully taking it from 1490 to at least 1550 and push the spire to ~1850 surpassing WTC 1 and CN Tower in one swoop. :yes:

Making the roof height 1775 and putting an antenna (not a spire) at the top would really make it stand out among all the current and future supertalls and still keep the self imposed nod to WTC1.

Zapatan Mar 25, 2015 6:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex1217 (Post 6964434)
Making the roof height 1775 and putting an antenna (not a spire) at the top would really make it stand out among all the current and future supertalls and still keep the self imposed nod to WTC1.

Honestly, I think the "self imposed nod" to WTC 1 is the dumbest thing ever... just pass it

baseball1992 Mar 25, 2015 6:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6964420)
I think the roof its going to be north of 1,500 feet, and could be up to 1,550 feet even. But I guess we'll have to wait to see.

You think 1500ft-1550ft to roof or parapet?

Onn Mar 25, 2015 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball1992 (Post 6964462)
You think 1500ft-1550ft to roof or parapet?

I thought the parapet and the roof were the same? Technically the parapet is an extension of the roof being bolted to it.

Personally I would say the parapet. But I don't know.

baseball1992 Mar 25, 2015 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6964481)
I thought the parapet and the roof were the same? Technically the parapet is an extension of the roof being bolted to it.

Personally I would say the parapet. But I don't know.

Well I'd assume the parapet height wouldn't be put on the DOB files for the official height when talking about highest occupied floor. So the number would be 60-70ft lower.

gramsjdg Mar 25, 2015 8:38 PM

When the new renders and plans came out last summer, the Parapet was at 1479 ft and the actual roof was at 1428 ft I believe. When the number was revised to 1490, there was no new schematic diagram presented for the upper portion of the tower, so who knows... I have to believe that by now they have decided on a final figure. Remember originally the top occupied floor was to be at 1550 ft with at least a hundred feet or more of mechanical floors/superstructure giving a roof height north of 1600 ft with no spire.

Onn Mar 25, 2015 9:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6964762)
When the new renders and plans came out last summer, the Parapet was at 1479 ft and the actual roof was at 1428 ft I believe. When the number was revised to 1490, there was no new schematic diagram presented for the upper portion of the tower, so who knows... I have to believe that by now they have decided on a final figure. Remember originally the top occupied floor was to be at 1550 ft with at least a hundred feet or more of mechanical floors/superstructure giving a roof height north of 1600 ft with no spire.

I think they may keep the antennas, but they may get shorter in exchange for increased space.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.