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)

chris08876 Oct 5, 2013 8:21 PM

Spires make the skyline awesome. There should be some. I think as long as they do some trippy looking lighting there can be a balance. Just look at this pic. The Bank of America, ESB, Crystler, and Times tower look boss. Add sort of a balance of where appropriate. I guess it depends on the angle. The 57th street towers and this will be taller then BOA towers spire by 100+ feet. A perspective of height.

http://img.wallpapergang.com/167proc...wallpapers.jpg
http://img.wallpapergang.com/167proc...wallpapers.jpg

NYguy Oct 6, 2013 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6291793)
I'm not quite a fan of "cheating" spires either. Putting a stick on top of a building ( a la ny times tower or 1WTC) doesn't cut it for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck From NY (Post 6292042)
Personally, I don't count antennas for height, and only count spires that are thick enough (like ESB, 1250ft), so in my mind, WTC1 is a flat-top.

No, we're not going to do that here.

I was merely point out a fact - New York's tallest have traditionally not been flat roofed buildings, as the crowning glory over a sea of boxes shouldn't be.

NYguy Oct 7, 2013 10:10 AM

No rest for Smith...


http://newssun.suntimes.com/lifestyl...en-cities.html

Quote:

Q: What’s next for Adrian Smith?

A: “At Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, we are working on a supertall building in New York City and we’re working on two very tall buildings in China, each one to be taller than the Sears (Willis) Tower.”


antinimby Oct 7, 2013 12:39 PM

And the buildings in China will probably be sexy and stunning. I don't blame AS though, because outside of Hines and perhaps a few others, NY developers are greedy, profit driven philistines. Of course in a way, they have to be because of the ridiculous high land and construction costs in this city. Compound that with extremely tight and conservative zoning laws and you got a recipe for the state of development we've got in this city. Sexy and stunning costs more than boxy and simple. A developer is going to choose to limit costs in favor of higher profits.

Sky88 Oct 7, 2013 1:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6293411)

Well, I don't understand why the comparison between the China's taller tower and the Sears (Willis) Tower. In China they are building for a long time the tallest towers than Sears tower, and not only now.
So, about the supertall building in New York,I hope that Adrian makes a better project than what we saw a few days ago.

McSky Oct 7, 2013 1:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 6293471)
Well, I don't understand why the comparison between the China's taller tower and the Sears (Willis) Tower. In China they are building for a long time the tallest towers than Sears tower, and not only now.
So, about the supertall building in New York,I hope that Adrian makes a better project than what we saw a few days ago.

Smith was doing an interview with a Chicago-area media company, so he offered the Willis building as a reference point for the readers.

Crawford Oct 7, 2013 1:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6293457)
Sexy and stunning costs more than boxy and simple. A developer is going to choose to limit costs in favor of higher profits.

Actually, those Chinese towers are far cheaper than the ones in NYC. It costs much less to build "towers in the park" type designs, and obviously labor costs are many times lower.

And those "sexy and stunning" towers would be horrible if they were built in NYC. I don't want suburban buildings in the middle of Manhattan, with lawns and parking garage bases.

antinimby Oct 7, 2013 2:30 PM

Duh. I think everyone knows that it's much cheaper to build in China. It's much cheaper to build even in this country just outside of Manhattan and the immediate surrounding areas. That's why they (China for example) can "splurge" on the shapes of their towers if they really want to make a statement. And it'll still come out costing less per sf than a simple box in NY.

And we're really talking about the towers themselves, not the open spaces surrounding them (although with lots of space and a blank slate to work with, NY will tend to do that as well as witnessed by the Hudson Yards with lots of open leafy spaces bet. each tower). We wish we can have something like the Ping An or the SWFC for instance.

Crawford Oct 7, 2013 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6293555)
Duh. I think everyone knows that it's much cheaper to build in China. It's much cheaper to build even in this country just outside of Manhattan and the immediate surrounding areas. That's why they (China for example) can "splurge" on the shapes of their towers if they really want to make a statement.

No, my point is that the China designs are cheaper. They're aren't "splurging"; it's much cheaper to build towers in the park. Usually, the materials are much cheaper too. Then, of course, the obvious labor cost differences.
Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6293555)
And we're really talking about the towers themselves, not the open spaces surrounding them (although with lots of space to work with, NY will tend to do that as well as witnessed by the Hudson Yards with lots of open leafy spaces bet. each tower). We wish we can have something like the Ping An or the SWFC for instance.

Your distinctions don't make sense. The design of the towers is specifically dictated by the site. If you have a tower surrounded by lawns, it's automatically cheaper to build then if hemmed in by buildings on all sides. If you build 20 floors of parking, it's automatically cheaper than if you're building actual floorspace.

And I'm not aware of a single building in Hudson Yards with such a suburban-style design.

I would definitely not want Ping An or SWFC in Manhattan. If the design could be modified to fit the Manhattan grid and streetscape, then yes. But not as built.

NYguy Oct 7, 2013 3:00 PM

Well, New York skyscrapers tend to be unique to the specific street grid and the limitations expressed by it. But that's also what makes New York, New York, different from just about everywhere else. Let the buildings in New York reflect New York, and everything else reflect where they are being built.

That being said, it doesn't mean skyscrapers in New York can't have nice designs. We are seeing some nice designs that quite frankly won't fit anywhere else.

This Nordstrom tower, as far as we have seen, is somewhere in between. Only when we get the full renderings can we say for certain which direction it goes.

antinimby Oct 7, 2013 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6293570)
No, my point is that the China designs are cheaper. They're aren't "splurging"; it's much cheaper to build towers in the park. Usually, the materials are much cheaper too. Then, of course, the obvious labor cost differences.

And it would be even cheaper to build a simple box in the park. Shapes are a big cost factor. Shape is one of the heirarchical factor that then affects labor and material costs. Are you even understanding my point? I don't really like reapeating myself for the third time to dense people who just want to post and sound authoritative. For a time, I really thought you were one of the few intelligent NY posters on this site, but obviously I was mistaken.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6293570)
I would definitely not want Ping An or SWFC in Manhattan. If the design could be modified to fit the Manhattan grid and streetscape, then yes. But not as built.

Again, for the second time, WE ARE TALKING ONLY ABOUT THE TOWERS THEMSELVES, THE BASE CAN BE DESIGNED TO FIT IN WITH THE MANHATTAN GRID.

Crawford Oct 7, 2013 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6293612)
Again, for the second time, WE ARE TALKING ONLY ABOUT THE TOWERS THEMSELVES, THE BASE CAN BE DESIGNED TO FIT IN WITH THE MANHATTAN GRID.

I see what you're saying, but then don't get the point.

Obviously we can take the pointy top of a Chinese building and integrate it into a normal Manhattan building. If you prefer flashy, aggressive designs, I can see how you prefer those Chinese crowns.

But obviously the building consists of the entire structure, and the most important part of the structure, by far, is the part that is integrated into the urban environment. I could give a flip about a building's crown if there's a lawn or parking garage at the base. You can't even see the design of the top from the street.

Sky88 Oct 8, 2013 3:02 PM

As per this doc filed with the DOB today, Extell tower is 1,550 feet. :)

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

Submariner Oct 8, 2013 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 6294972)
As per this doc filed with the DOB today, Extell tower is 1,550 feet. :)

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

So, why did they announce it as 1423 feet?

Urbana Oct 8, 2013 3:15 PM

Perhaps we are getting some sort of spire/crown after all?

hunser Oct 8, 2013 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6294989)
So, why did they announce it as 1423 feet?

Probably outdated info. Gordon Gill himself mentioned the precise number at the meeting, which is 1423'10''.

NYguy Oct 8, 2013 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 6294972)
As per this doc filed with the DOB today, Extell tower is 1,550 feet. :)

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


That's not the new building permit, which will reveal new height info when submitted. The changes won't be reflected in the other permits until that is updated.

That particular permit is for excavation, the new building permit number listed below.

Quote:

PLANS FILED FOR SUPPORT OF PARTIAL EXCAVATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH NB 121328205.

nomad11 Oct 10, 2013 9:15 PM

Word on the street (SSC) is that official renders will be released soon...let's hope soon means "weeks", not "months"

antinimby Oct 11, 2013 6:16 AM

I'm just not as excited anymore.

Roadcruiser1 Oct 11, 2013 6:36 AM

Well the NY Daily News released a rendering of the base of tower 10 days ago!

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...er2n-3-web.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...er2n-3-web.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.

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