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 Oct 20, 2021 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC123 (Post 9429230)
Can't believe in a couple of years this building won't be the tallest any more. Just right now we have 3 proposals that will be taller (1 one of them is gonna have to walk a tightrope to pass). And I'm sure there will be more soon.


I was thinking about that, we could be seeing 2 or 3 (at least) taller towers going up in Midtown alone. I'm fine with it. I'm ecstatic at the thought actually. Just keep climbing that ladder.



https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...exZYg.cpt7.png

Drcastro Oct 21, 2021 4:58 AM

Does the top only have lighting on the east and south faces? I don’t think I’ve seen the other two sides lit up.

mrnyc Oct 21, 2021 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drcastro (Post 9429802)
Does the top only have lighting on the east and south faces? I don’t think I’ve seen the other two sides lit up.

sorry, i haven't noticed, but south too maybe? :shrug:

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...wn-777x527.jpg

NYguy Oct 21, 2021 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drcastro (Post 9429802)
Does the top only have lighting on the east and south faces? I don’t think I’ve seen the other two sides lit up.

There will be lighting all around, they’ve just been doing a side at a time.



https://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1...jtstI4N.v9.JPG

eXodius Oct 22, 2021 4:48 AM

Taken this evening from Summit:

http://i.imgur.com/UskB88tl.jpg

Drcastro Oct 22, 2021 6:15 AM

Is Summit what they call the top of 1 Vanderbilt?

streetscaper Oct 22, 2021 8:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eXodius (Post 9430925)
Taken this evening from Summit:

http://i.imgur.com/UskB88tl.jpg

Ha! awe were there at the same time!

eXodius Oct 22, 2021 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by streetscaper (Post 9430981)
Ha! awe were there at the same time!

Was hoping to run into some people from this and other skyscraper forums! Guess we should've set up a meeting page! I tried getting up earlier but there was a big line so I missed sunset by a few minutes :(

NYguy Oct 23, 2021 2:29 AM

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVTL7jXLk8P/

https://cdn.inflact.com/media/247197...b3ee5de95bf7ea

Drcastro Oct 23, 2021 3:38 AM

Is that plane landing at Teeterboro or in the Hudson?

NYguy Oct 24, 2021 11:57 PM

^ LaGuardia.



https://www.instagram.com/p/CVIj_H7rYL9/

https://www.picuki.com/hosted-by-ins...c_sid%3D83d603




https://www.instagram.com/p/CVDpjE2gBlw/

https://cdn1.mystalk.net/?token=eyJ0...cugJe-J2je4-MI



https://cdn1.mystalk.net/?token=eyJ0...KmKoQO4d5y-2vw



https://cdn1.mystalk.net/?token=eyJ0...fQHZ09Aa4t1C_M

NYguy Oct 27, 2021 12:13 AM

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVgad1ypzf8/

https://cdn1.mystalk.net/?token=eyJ0...1yUpjHKgbtaNZQ

TREPYE Oct 27, 2021 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE (Post 9416975)
Aesthetic???

This tower categorically has NO aesthetics. Its is a massing exercise that is 1500+ feet tall; the shape is synonymous with building a tower that is 1500 feet tall as cheaply as possible.

A testament to how some developers like Extell should absolutely have no bearing on "contributing" to the NYC skyline as they tastelessly besmirch it with visual trash like this that emanates out of it. As far as Smith and Gill goes, they seem to have really needed to money from this atrocious commission; not a shred of architectural dignity is reflected on this, with the exception that is tall; a towering showcase of indifference to aesthetics or embellishment of any kind.

I suppose you can split hairs by comparing it with 432 Park, but they are both different variations of the same exercise, built it tall and cheap, even if its ugly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago103 (Post 9417766)
What observation deck levels are you referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 9417781)
This is like a toddler-level understanding of architecture, design and real estate.

Glass towers aren't "cheaper" than masonry. You may not like the aesthetics, but developers don't go with glass bc they want to save money. Their glass/masonry decisionmaking is based on their perception of target market preferences, not whether they can get a deal on masonry at Home Depot or something. Geez.

And 432 Park and CPT are among the most expensive residential towers ever erected, anywhere on the planet. They're the antithesis of "cheap". Quality glass is incredibly expensive, generally more expensive than masonry, and labor costs are extremely high.

Yeah cuz when people are looking at a NYC supertall skyscraper they are assessing the price and quality of the windows and masonry.... please.

Fact of the matter is that regardless of what materials were overpaid for to sheath these 2 towers (432 Park and this CPT) they are dismal aesthetically from a form standpoint. The only form they project is to fill space as cheaply as possible. Cheaply being with rectilinear materials that are easy to manufacture; CPT doesn't even have any decent symmetrical setbacks. Just rectilinear glass that, notches and culminates in a flatline.

You folks (Chicago103, Crawford) come off as indignant project managers; if you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower (CPT) and paid $3 Billion dollars to build this atrocious construct, which is even more expensive than 1 WTC/Freedom Tower (even adjusted for inflation), you ought to reconsider your procurement practices as you have been fleeced into blatant overpayment.

UrbanImpact Oct 27, 2021 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE (Post 9435197)
Yeah cuz when people are looking at a NYC supertall skyscraper they are assessing the price and quality of the windows and masonry.... please.

Fact of the matter is that regardless of what materials were overpaid for to sheath these 2 towers (432 Park and this CPT) they are dismal aesthetically from a form standpoint. The only form they project is to fill space as cheaply as possible. Cheaply being with rectilinear materials that are easy to manufacture; CPT doesn't even have any decent symmetrical setbacks. Just rectilinear glass that, notches and culminates in a flatline.

You folks (Chicago103, Crawford) come off as indignant project managers; if you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower (CPT) and paid $3 Billion dollars to build this atrocious construct, which is even more expensive than 1 WTC/Freedom Tower (even adjusted for inflation), you ought to reconsider your procurement practices as you have been fleeced into blatant overpayment.

Opinions are funny :yes:

gttx Oct 27, 2021 5:09 PM

We get it, you don't like modernist boxes. Maybe you shouldn't buy a unit in this building.

MAC123 Oct 27, 2021 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE (Post 9435197)
Yeah cuz when people are looking at a NYC supertall skyscraper they are assessing the price and quality of the windows and masonry.... please.

Fact of the matter is that regardless of what materials were overpaid for to sheath these 2 towers (432 Park and this CPT) they are dismal aesthetically from a form standpoint. The only form they project is to fill space as cheaply as possible. Cheaply being with rectilinear materials that are easy to manufacture; CPT doesn't even have any decent symmetrical setbacks. Just rectilinear glass that, notches and culminates in a flatline.

You folks (Chicago103, Crawford) come off as indignant project managers; if you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower (CPT) and paid $3 Billion dollars to build this atrocious construct, which is even more expensive than 1 WTC/Freedom Tower (even adjusted for inflation), you ought to reconsider your procurement practices as you have been fleeced into blatant overpayment.

"Yeah cuz when people are looking at a NYC supertall skyscraper they are assessing the price and quality of the windows and masonry.... please"
No, the general public looks up, admires the height and then moves on. Unless the building is especially disgusting the general public doesn't care what they look like, and neither CPT or 432 are especially disgusting (though 432 isn't eyecandy either)

"Fact of the matter is that regardless of what materials were overpaid for to sheath these 2 towers (432 Park and this CPT) they are dismal aesthetically from a form standpoint. The only form they project is to fill space as cheaply as possible" 1) You starting off by saying "fact" doesn't make what you say a fact, it's still an opinion 2) First off, neither of these buildings is cheap. 3) Yes of course they overpaid for the materials because you don't like them. 4) Uhh, duh. All buildings have the goal to fill the space as cheaply as possible unless they're just a project like the Burj Khalifa. But once again neither of these buildings was cheap or value engineered. (besides the actual building of 432 which apparently wasn't done right).

"Cheaply being with rectilinear materials that are easy to manufacture; CPT doesn't even have any decent symmetrical setbacks. Just rectilinear glass that, notches and culminates in a flatline"
1) Again you calling them cheap doesn't make them cheap. 2) The word cheap isn't a synonym for bad. 3) And? Why do symmetrical setbacks matter? 4) Yep, that is the ending to that building. Congrats.

"You folks (Chicago103, Crawford) come off as indignant project managers; if you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower (CPT) and paid $3 Billion dollars to build this atrocious construct, which is even more expensive than 1 WTC/Freedom Tower (even adjusted for inflation), you ought to reconsider your procurement practices as you have been fleeced into blatant overpayment" 1) If you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower, you'd go bankrupt because you have no idea what you're talking about.

CPT is not some marvel and I'd say is outclassed in style by the closeby Steinway tower, but it's also not some eyesore, it looks perfectly fine.

mrnyc Oct 27, 2021 5:52 PM

^ exactly. it looks great actually. i like the cantilevering and you can see the quality up close.

i dont like the abrupt flat top as much as any h8r, but the crown, such as it is, resolved really well with the classier than i expected styling and lighting.

jbermingham123 Oct 27, 2021 6:02 PM

I've grown to love 432. It looks like a plain modernist POS at first, but the subtle beauty becomes obvious if you try to picture this building anywhere outside of Manhattan.

It fits NYC and only NYC

NYguy Oct 29, 2021 2:17 AM

Daniel Krieger Photography


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1fe6117c_b.jpg



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d0e7a08d_h.jpg

eXodius Oct 29, 2021 4:46 AM

Looks like it was taken from the same angle as the sightseeing tour I was on :D

http://i.imgur.com/k1WhYOIl.jpg

I posted others here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=248852


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:01 AM.

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