Originally the roof was going to be shorter but with a spire. Then they decided to increase the roof height but remove the spire. They want the WTC to retain the "tallest building in America" title. They won't add a spire out of "respect" which I guess is understandable.

But The Nordstrom Tower will be the tallest building in America by roof height, which is what most people count. I'm from NY and I never considered the new WTC the tallest building. The Willis Tower has a higher roof. I don't count antenna's or spire's. But The Nordstrom Tower will overtake The Willis Tower when it's completed which I'm thrilled about. For all intents and purposes it will become the tallest building in America.

Sadly, what individual people consider taller or not doesn't matter. The Freedom Tower is the tallest on the country, even though it's not the tallest in New York by roof height. By now, we all know how this works, no sense crying about it. I don't think Barnett is concerned about a spire, even though he insisted from the beginning there wouldn't be one. A spire isn't gonna get this building financed, nor units sold.

Sure, it would look better on the skyline, and I'm hoping it's still pulled off (nobody says it has to be higher than the FT).

They may have a spire. They had one, and then they didn't have one. I agree the building looks unfinished without a spire.

We'll just have to wait.

^^^If you could go ahead and please stop saying Willis Tower, that'd be great. It's Sears. :yes:

The Sears maybe a good 100' shorter but it still a monster and dwarfs this new building.

Actually I think there's some eye trickery at play here based on the Sears Tower design, which fools the eye into thinking it is bigger than it actually is (probably the intention of the design).

From about 260 meters to the roof, both building are roughly the same girth. Then from about the 200 to 260 meter mark on the Sears Tower side...that's about the same girth as the Nordstrom from 0 to 140 meters.

So that means that the Nordstrom is roughly the same girth (maybe a bit thinner) from 0 to 140 meters, and from 260 to 470 meters. That's 350 meters total. This means the Sears Tower is roughly only "thicker" for around 120 Meters of the building, if I'm not mistaken. Hope that wasn't too confusing.

Imagine cpt will have a spire same as in the paste it will domine willis tower

That's not saying much, the same thing could be said for 30 Hudson. But it's at the top where it counts. If you stood in the top 100 ft of Nordstrom, you'd get a good look at the roof of the Sears. Of course, the Sears has the advantage of not having as much competition up close. That could be looked at as either a downside here, or a positive.

I mainly want the spire for the aesthetics of the skyline though, it's already going to be tallest by roof height.

There is no way it's even close. Sears is actually a big fat behemoth.

Total floor area

Sears - 4,477,800 sq ft

One WTC - 3,501,274 sq ft

Central Park Tower - 1,015,000 sq ft

No one wants to dethrone WTC1 from that top position. We have already seen that with the respectful fistbump CPT had with the 1775 plans. IMO Chicago has to be the one to exceed 1776. No one in NYC will attempt that until at least 30 years have passed. But if we can continue building towers to 1550 feet or higher, 2000 feet eventually has to happen based on space and demand in Manhattan.

Speak for yourself. I would love for 1 WTC to be dethroned.

And I bet we'll get a taller tower within the next decade or so. There are so many supertall sites, and the economics of skinny supertalls gets more and more favorable as the years pass.

WTC1 is quite ugly, specially with that ugly spire, which is quite different from the asymmetrical one appearing in the early designs.

I don't mind the fact that they are not putting on a spire because I find spires to be overdone IMO. However, I do wonder why they didn't for this building because they could claim the tallest in NA. Maybe they are a humble bunch and don't want to be perceived as egotistical fat cats?

Really? While the bottom 260 meters of Sears is noticeably wider, it's not too noticeable the rest of the way up, at least not from this diagram. The angle would play a big part too though.

I wouldn't say either building dwarfs the other in any way. Sears is a bit wider but a bit shorter to the roof yet they both would have similar skyline impact.

Not sure what diagram you are looking at. Based on the one above on this page, Sears looks dramatically wider along the vast majority of its length. To me. Not that it really matters...

Lol this. I was going to say the Sears has to be at least double the SF. I was wrong, it's 4.5 times the square footage. Get this puny matchstick out of here.


Oh and spires are the dumbest shit ever, this building absolutely does not need one.

Okay...I'm gonna sic my dog into this fight briefly....

This tower can positively thrive, aesthetically at the very least, either with or without one.

If it winds up getting one, we have a totally awesome panned-out skyline picture that turns it and WTC1 into a hee-yooge pair of bookends.
If it winds up not geting one, then we have a dual-facaded, still totally awesome supertall that looking south from CP kinda looks like One57's really big brother.

Did I mention that Nordstrom/CPT's facade looks like a vertical fusion of two different towers? See for yourself.

Thanks for letting me play along. Here, Cerberus..........
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...9/qC_ezDkV.jpg

Spire or no spire, it's getting built. We may as well get ready.



SEPTEMBER 23, 2017


1.
http://m9.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211756.jpg


2.
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211808.jpg


3.
http://m4.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211820.jpg


4.
http://m6.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211835.jpg


5.
http://m7.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211850.jpg


6.
http://m9.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211908.jpg


7.
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211924.jpg


8.
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211939.jpg


9.
http://m4.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_211953.jpg


10.
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212328.jpg


11.
http://m1.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212342.jpg


12.
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212354.jpg


13.
http://m3.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212406.jpg


14.
http://m5.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212424.jpg


15.
http://m6.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212437.jpg


16.
http://m8.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212449.jpg


17.
http://m9.i.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/...923_212503.jpg

What's that clear glass-over-concrete building with the yellow edge lighting to the left of CPT? Looks like a cool idea. Is that a rehab?

The one Rosedale Management is in I believe?

It's a rehab, by Moinian, a major Manhattan developer. A rival developer (Related- developer of Hudson Yards) wanted to buy it, knock it down, and build a supertall condo tower, but Moinian was able to hang onto the property.

I really hope that building is eventually sold and redeveloped. It's kinda ugly and a poor use of such a prominent site. The site has incredible potential park views.