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)

Zapatan Apr 21, 2015 5:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighwayStar (Post 6998586)
Well it actually *is* accurate.. just very badly drawn. The white line from 1479' Parapet does a 90 degree upward turn *exactly* on the edge of the building... I had to do a double-take to see it does go all the way to the red dot on the roof....


I was referring more to 1WTC being out of scale, but yea Nordstrom is seen from a funny angle in that picture.

babybackribs2314 Apr 21, 2015 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6998248)
Clearly the renderings are not the final, polished renderings we will eventually get.

Just stay quiet Barnett. The 1,550 ft tower was a better plan if you're going for "respect".

i love how they ran with the YIMBY renderings from a year ago vs. the new ones from Monday that are actually official.... lol

Zapatan Apr 21, 2015 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6998248)
Just stay quiet Barnett. The 1,550 ft tower was a better plan if you're going for "respect".

He makes it sound like he's not exactly hellbent on keeping it under 1776'. You'd think someone with his ego would just forget about it and build tallest, or maybe he will and just doesn't want to arouse too much excitement/controversy (not that anyone really cares either way).

Quote:

“When we were planning the building, we decided that we were going to make it less tall out of respect,” said Nordstrom Tower developer Gary Barnett. “I can’t comment on what other developers plan to do or what our final building will be, but that was the plan.”

chris08876 Apr 21, 2015 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6999152)
He makes it sound like he's not exactly hellbent on keeping it under 1776'. You'd think someone with his ego would just forget about it and build tallest, or maybe he will and just doesn't want to arouse too much excitement/controversy (not that anyone really cares either way).

A better time to do it would be when its half way finished. Just add some extra height to the spire to gain the title of first.

By then, much of it would already be up, and whats a few extra feet for ego. Marketing wise, being the nations tallest sounds a lot better than being second. Eh, we will see, but a covert tactics like that would be nice.

But depending on which definition you use, spire or not, this is the tallest to the roof so technically some in the architect/real estate community would view this as the tallest in the Western Hemisphere.

Zapatan Apr 21, 2015 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6999184)
A better time to do it would be when its half way finished. Just add some extra height to the spire to gain the title of first.

By then, much of it would already be up, and whats a few extra feet for ego. Marketing wise, being the nations tallest sounds a lot better than being second. Eh, we will see, but a covert tactics like that would be nice.

But depending on which definition you use, spire or not, this is the tallest to the roof so technically some in the architect/real estate community would view this as the tallest in the Western Hemisphere.

Indeed... just like Chrysler building :)

Honestly I think "one of the tallest in the world" sounds better than "tallest in the Western Hemisphere".

It certainly is up there especially if you count the spire.

pico44 Apr 22, 2015 12:17 AM

When I heard Adrian Smith was chosen to design this building, I was terribly disappointed. He is perfectly fine at what he does, but I certainly wouldn't call him a great architect; or even very-good. He is simply...good, which is a perfectly appropriate thing to aspire to if you are building mid-block mid-rises in downtown Dallas or Seattle. The fact that he the de-facto architect for any massive skyscraper right now is mind-boggling. Seeing this design, I find myself absolutely vindicated. If this were a 50 story building in Jersey City, I'd be satisfied. As the new highest-peak in Manhattan, it is a sham, and a money-grab and idiotic. Gary Barnett is a clown.

The design is in no way innovative or smart or beautiful. It wants to be sleek but fails miserably with dozens of unnecessary lines (the original render was actually much better in this regard). It wants to be beautiful but is merely handsome in a goofy kind of way (this goofiness is made worse by the juxtaposition with the gorgeous 111 W 57th and Tower Verre). I'm sure they will try to find some way that this thing is innovative, and I'm sure they will fail.

It's just tall.

And boring.

Ugh.

Zapatan Apr 22, 2015 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6999225)
When I heard Adrian Smith was chosen to design this building, I was terribly disappointed. He is perfectly fine at what he does, but I certainly wouldn't call him a great architect; or even very-good. He is simply...good, which is a perfectly appropriate thing to aspire to if you are building mid-block mid-rises in downtown Dallas or Seattle. The fact that he the de-facto architect for any massive skyscraper right now is mind-boggling. Seeing this design, I find myself absolutely vindicated. If this were a 50 story building in Jersey City, I'd be satisfied. As the new highest-peak in Manhattan, it is a sham, and a money-grab and idiotic. Gary Barnett is a clown.

The design is in no way innovative or smart or beautiful. It wants to be sleek but fails miserably with dozens of unnecessary lines (the original render was actually much better in this regard). It wants to be beautiful but is merely handsome in a goofy kind of way (this goofiness is made worse by the juxtaposition with the gorgeous 111 W 57th and Tower Verre). I'm sure they will try to find some way that this thing is innovative, and I'm sure they will fail.

It's just tall.

And boring.

Ugh.


To each their own, maybe it will grow on you once built. I thought 432 park Avenue was going to look odd but I like it now that it exists in real life and not in a rendering.

I do see what you're saying though, I often find that what we gain in height we lose in design (with the exception on a few buildings). We should always have both... but even with that being said I think this building will look pretty good or even better than that. I mean the facade looks real nice, it has an actual spire that fits with the building, it's not a complete box and to top it off it's a behemoth that would be the second tallest building even in Dubai or Shanghai. It's hard to complain too much, it's not any less cool than other North American 400+ meter buildings (Sears, old WTC, new WTC, 432 etc...)

Onn Apr 22, 2015 1:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6999225)
When I heard Adrian Smith was chosen to design this building, I was terribly disappointed. He is perfectly fine at what he does, but I certainly wouldn't call him a great architect; or even very-good. He is simply...good, which is a perfectly appropriate thing to aspire to if you are building mid-block mid-rises in downtown Dallas or Seattle. The fact that he the de-facto architect for any massive skyscraper right now is mind-boggling. Seeing this design, I find myself absolutely vindicated. If this were a 50 story building in Jersey City, I'd be satisfied. As the new highest-peak in Manhattan, it is a sham, and a money-grab and idiotic. Gary Barnett is a clown.

Adrian Smith is a very talented architect, he's worked on some of America's most iconic buildings easily. The tower isn't perfect, but I don't know what people are expecting. There are a few jewels going up in New York City right now, yes, but it's not like every tower from here on out is going to be that way. Extell is building an impressive, tall, yet economical building here. Just like 432 Park. Very different designs, but the same end goal.


Quote:

The design is in no way innovative or smart or beautiful. It wants to be sleek but fails miserably with dozens of unnecessary lines (the original render was actually much better in this regard). It wants to be beautiful but is merely handsome in a goofy kind of way (this goofiness is made worse by the juxtaposition with the gorgeous 111 W 57th and Tower Verre). I'm sure they will try to find some way that this thing is innovative, and I'm sure they will fail.
I would definitely hold off judgment until the tower is actually finished first. Clearly the tweaking their doing is making a difference, like with the spire which looks better now than it did. And as Barnett said they will be continuing to tweak right until the walls go up. You might completely change your mind when its finished, as often happens with many (like with One57). It will be one of the tallest buildings in New York for a long time to come.

gramsjdg Apr 22, 2015 2:27 AM

The fact that the new render is both (technically) unofficial and low rez gives me pause. I think we are still basically where we have been for the last 6 months or so regarding the final design and final roof and parapet height. Kind of a let-down actually. Still nothing official.:shrug:

Otie's renders are still the best so far. Nothing much to see here folks except for, perhaps, a couple detail items on the tower...

JayPro Apr 22, 2015 3:36 AM

So then why (what AGAIN seems to have turned out to be) the tease on the promise of official renderings from the idiot parties involved once "official"-W/everTF that means--construction got underway?

For that matter, why did YIMBY declare official the renderings from the other day when this now apparently seems to be not the case? IMHO it comes off like an act of gamesmanship in order to get the lead out of Barnett & S/G's collective pants.

For that reason alone, I can understand Barnett's pissivity at the releases; but this incessant hemming and hawing with renders and the finality/lack thereof just makes him look all the more like the chief engineer of a PR trainwreck that started with the CB5 meetings.

AFAIC, I'm utterly shocked that the egos in play here didn't simply kill this project. And I'm getting awfully tired of thinking that I'll have to wait till this tower is 800 feet in the air to find out that what I'm seeing is at long last what I get.

Besides, how can we trust the so-called "brain trust" of a massive construction project to tell the whole truth on their project's status when on even one aspect thereof they're sorely lacking in that regard?

(Rhetoric Warning Will Robinson>>) You have definitively, absolutely, unequivoally official renders to share with the rest of the class? Dandy; let's see them and move ahead.
Otherwise leave me alone till that happens and spare us all the self-righteous indignation over whatever.

mattymatt88 Apr 22, 2015 3:42 AM

I'm extremely excited to see this building go up but the new renderings are either too close or too far away. I still don't have a clear vision of what the whole building building will look like. I think the mystery behind this one makes it my favorite at the moment.

Zapatan Apr 22, 2015 4:03 AM

Once again everyone is all upset over nothing.

a ~1500 foot blue glass skyscraper with a kick ass spire is being built and people are finding reasons to complain. We've seen the renderings guys, this is what the building has always looked like since last year except it got a little taller with a thicker spire it looks. I know they may not be the best renderings but this thing is under construction which is all that matters.

What else does everyone want?

dendenden Apr 22, 2015 4:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6999455)
Once again everyone is all upset over nothing.

a ~1500 foot blue glass skyscraper with a kick ass spire is being built and people are finding reasons to complain. We've seen the renderings guys, this is what the building has always looked like since last year except it got a little taller with a thicker spire it looks. I know they may not be the best renderings but this thing is under construction which is all that matters.

What else does everyone want?

I am completely psyched about this building since the new renderings came out! Not every building can be St Mary Axe or The Steinway. I think it's sleek. If only we could get something like this in Denver.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Apr 22, 2015 4:51 AM

I find it funny that people are still slandering the architects did everyone forget what their original proposal for this site was that won them the bid? They wanted to deliver a stunning design i think cost and management got in the way.

Crawford Apr 22, 2015 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6999356)
The fact that the new render is both (technically) unofficial and low rez gives me pause. I think we are still basically where we have been for the last 6 months or so regarding the final design and final roof and parapet height. Kind of a let-down actually. Still nothing official.:shrug:

Otie's renders are still the best so far. Nothing much to see here folks except for, perhaps, a couple detail items on the tower...

Oh boy, here we go again...

We have known this building's design, height and various specs for a year now. We even know the construction schedule. Why some people keep claiming they're waiting for "final design" "final height" and "more details" is absolutely mystifying. You probably won't get a thing until the marketing phase, just like with any other building.

mistermetAJ Apr 22, 2015 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6999488)
I find it funny that people are still slandering the architects did everyone forget what their original proposal for this site was that won them the bid? They wanted to deliver a stunning design i think cost and management got in the way.

Should we stop criticizing Gene Kaufman and Peter Poon as well?

This building, not their original proposal, is tied to them. They inherit all the credit and blame like every architect before them. If they couldn't design an attractive building within the framework of the site and developer requirements it is their fault.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Apr 22, 2015 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6999626)
Should we stop criticizing Gene Kaufman and Peter Poon as well?

This building, not their original proposal, is tied to them. They inherit all the credit and blame like every architect before them. If they couldn't design an attractive building within the framework of the site and developer requirements it is their fault.

Are you comparting them to peter poon and Gene Khaufman?

And you do know that architects go through many incarnations to make the client happy. Their original propsal if built would have been able to hold a candle to Shanghai Tower ad yet we got this. Nordstrom put constraint on this project with its demands and extell cut corners to maximize profits. Architects arnt magicians they cant just wave a wand and a spectacular building appears, the clients, developers and those that funding the project must all want to create a masterpiece or else youll get what you pay for. With this logic maybe we should call David Childs and SOM horrible arcitects for the dursts decision to scrap the 1 WTC spire.

Zapatan Apr 22, 2015 6:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6999597)
Oh boy, here we go again...

We have known this building's design, height and various specs for a year now. We even know the construction schedule. Why some people keep claiming they're waiting for "final design" "final height" and "more details" is absolutely mystifying. You probably won't get a thing until the marketing phase, just like with any other building.

+1

I don't get it either.

De Minimis NY Apr 22, 2015 9:24 PM

It's a fair point to make. That Kaufman has an extreme talent for designing cheap and efficient structures does not vindicate the fact that he is filling the city with garbage from an aesthetic perspective. I don't personally think that Adrian Smith is deserving of the comparison, but I agree with the concept that architects shouldn't get a pass just because they are working under the specifications of the developer.

Crains recently did a piece on Kaufman (link copied below) that celebrates his designs as intelligent solutions to problems posed by developers that are looking to squeeze large numbers of hotel rooms into small spaces while simultaneously complying with certain dimensional requirements imposed by the national hotel brands. The problem is, we already know (or hope) that Kaufman would design less horrible buildings if given an unlimited budget and an ideal zoning envelope. Telling us that his monstrosities are a product of his constraints only makes it clear that he's a sleezebag rather than an incompetent hack.

In this sense he is no different than the bankers that created mortgage-backed securities that they knew were predatory to borrowers and unsound for lenders--in both cases a ton of creativity and intelligence was applied in designing technically impressive structures that harm the public while making a lot of money for a few scumbags. Kaufman helped Sam Chang cram a ton of extra hotel rooms into empty lots by shitting on our streetscapes, both of them happy to profit from the beautiful architecture of our city (which creates much of that tourist demand) by detracting from it.

It's architectural pollution and the price to an architect of taking the money to help developers get away with it is and should be the reputation of that architect.

I get why they do it, but they deserve any criticism that comes with the territory.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...n-a-shoestring

Also, to reiterate, while I think this building may be a missed opportunity, it's probably a net positive addition for the city and definitely far from Kaufman-esque.

Submariner Apr 22, 2015 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Minimis NY (Post 7000432)
It's a fair point to make. That Kaufman has an extreme talent for designing cheap and efficient structures does not vindicate the fact that he is filling the city with garbage from an aesthetic perspective. I don't personally think that Adrian Smith is deserving of the comparison, but I agree with the concept that architects shouldn't get a pass just because they are working under the specifications of the developer.

Crains recently did a piece on Kaufman (link copied below) that celebrates his designs as intelligent solutions to problems posed by developers that are looking to squeeze large numbers of hotel rooms into small spaces while simultaneously complying with certain dimensional requirements imposed by the national hotel brands. The problem is, we already know (or hope) that Kaufman would design less horrible buildings if given an unlimited budget and an ideal zoning envelope. Telling us that his monstrosities are a product of his constraints only makes it clear that he's a sleezebag rather than an incompetent hack.

In this sense he is no different than the bankers that created mortgage-backed securities that they knew were predatory to borrowers and unsound for lenders--in both cases a ton of creativity and intelligence was applied in designing technically impressive structures that harm the public while making a lot of money for a few scumbags. Kaufman helped Sam Chang cram a ton of extra hotel rooms into empty lots by shitting on our streetscapes, both of them happy to profit from the beautiful architecture of our city (which creates much of that tourist demand) by detracting from it.

It's architectural pollution and the price to an architect of taking the money to help developers get away with it is and should be the reputation of that architect.

I get why they do it, but they deserve any criticism that comes with the territory.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...n-a-shoestring

Also, to reiterate, while I think this building may be a missed opportunity, it's probably a net positive addition for the city and definitely far from Kaufman-esque.

This is getting way off topic. But I'd just like to point out that while I abhor Kauffman and the garbage he puts out, hotels have to maximize every inch of space they build for a project to make sense. Land is comically expensive in Manhattan, and a Holliday Inn can't afford to build 220 CPS junior with their clientele.

That being said, let's get back to 217.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:37 PM.

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