@Crawford at al;

I'll say this and wait for the next relevant battery of postage to rear its head.

I'd like to think that the reception of a supertall in an American or western European city should be seen as nothing more than an extremely pleasant surprise. That said, There still needs to be what I perceive as extreme vigilance against a propensity everywhere else in the world to build tall as if to engage in some kind of obsessive-compulsive pissing contest.

I do think that it is a bit outlandish to think that this was leaked on purpose by Gary Barnett to see the reactions of the people and make as you said a "design by committee", but in the other hand I think you are understimating the influence that post in NYYimby had. ( I have to say that I myself am surprised of how quick the news spread of that site)

Soon after it appeared there, it was shown in other real estate blogs, such as the real deal or curbed, and it was mentioned in the CTUBH site.

And not only that, it made an article at the New York Daily News and even in a TV news program at Q13 Fox News. So by now, this news is a matter of the general public knowledge and not only of the small skyscraper geek community.

I don't know what happened there, if the guy that leaked the information knew that there won't be consequences from Extell for leaking the information, but it is even possible that Extell itself authorized the leak, Anyway, it seems that they didn't care about the design partially revealed. Not so long ago, NYYimby published an entry about a huge development in Jersey City, taken from the site of the architect involved itself, and a couple of days after, the architect took the information off his site and required Yimby to do the same.

I know first-hand that you are very wrong on the first part of paragraph #2, but otherwise good post. ;)

Also: thread title should be changed to 225 West 57th Street, as 217 W 57th is not the address they are using.

Well I'm sorry to NY YIMBY then. It's a fantastic website, and I check it almost daily.

My point is that building height is not a big deal outside of the context of skyscraper fans. Gary Barnett isn't spending time agonizing over whether the building is 1775 or 1550 or whatever. He's trying to make a building as profitable as possible.

The point is that they're going with the most profitable design. Height, while not completely irrelevent, is just a function of what the bean counters believe will be the design best received by the condo-buying public. No one (outside of SSP) is losing sleep over the exact specs, except for how they relate to the future success of this tower.

Tell you what, go interview Barnett, Trump, or other 'scraper developers and ask THEM if they ever have cared about height and then come here and say that. You may be surprised. Problem is, they probably wouldn't admit it for fear of appearing childishly egotistical..

I like this tower. I think it's the best new supertall NY has in the works right now. So many supertalls are boring these days. Just tall featureless shafts with little facade detail. While this tower may not have an intricate facade, the shape and massing are great. I like supertalls with interesting setbacks and massing. Basically if you can see one side of a building and not need to see another side to know what it looks like, then it's pretty boring. Same goes for the base and top. Supertalls being so tall, it's really hard to put any details into the facade that will be effectively visible from the ground, so having setbacks or indentions in the facade is the best way to make them interesting. This building has enough going on to keep your eye interested. This is way better than 432 Park.

You are convoluting architectural criticism with an engineering feat. The engineering can impressive and still be a terrible architectural design, which this seems to be. The same can be said about 432 Park.

lets stop complaining about the design when we havent even seen any official renderings yet.

No apology needed! And thank you! :)

And yes, profit is the motivating factor here. Which is why the supertall boom in NYC is actually sustainable.

No other place on Earth (besides HK) is subject to the limiting factors of Manhattan. While projects like 1 WTC have been prohibitively expensive, I think advances in tech with the most recent supertalls (including 432 Park) have paved the way for a new generation that will be available for the mass market, presenting a previously infeasible option for solving the housing crisis.

NYC's skyline is undergoing to most exciting transformation in history. To think that what's current/hopefully imminent will push NY back to #1 in the globe is kind of mind-boggling, given how far Manhattan had fallen behind. But it's happening...! :cheers:

Is it actually true that there has been any improvement in technology that has significantly affected the ability to build skyscrapers? It sure looks like they are built of the same concrete and steel that they have always been built with. Generally speaking the cost of a building has always increased exponentially with floor count and looking at the cost of these buildings that still seems to be the case. The only real cost advantage I can see in the current buildings is that they are for the super wealthy and therefor have large units which means less people and therefore less elevators are needed. So far as I can tell it would still be financially impossible to build a supertall for the "mass market" or that had enough units to have any significant effect on the housing crisis. So far as I can tell the only change in the last few years that has allowed more supertalls to be built is the widening income disparity that has caused the number of ultra-wealthy to increase substantially. However, this only worsens the housing issues because the converse is that the vast majority of people have less money and therefore need even cheaper housing.

There has been some, but by how much is the question. The last exhibit at the skyscraper museum featured this.

What's really driving these supertalls in Manhattan as far as residential goes is the fact that people are willing to spend the amounts they are for those upper spaces. Given the high costs of land and building such towers, that is what drives it. It's the reason you're not seeing these types of towers going up all over the place. New York isn't the only city that can build a super-slim, super-tall tower. It just happens to be one of the few places where it makes sense.




http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...H/sky_high.htm

personally i don't like when the side of a building juts out from the side, but on this tower its low enough where it wouldn't be noticed too much in the skyline. nice height but the spire is a bit unnecessary, its oddly placed and doesn't really add much.

We'll have to see the official renderings on that. I agree that it would look better without the cantilever, even though it seems toned down slightly. As far as the spire design, it's not different than a lot of spires. I keep particularly thinking of his asymmetrical spire on top of the Trump Tower Chicago, it's a similar placing. That tower doesn't need it either, but it would look much different without it. I think the same can be said here, if Barnett does indeed follow through with the spire. I mentioned earlier, Manhattan's tallest should have a spire.

What I don't like about the spire is that it stops at 1,775 ft. I find that too close to the Freedom Tower's height to be a coincidence. We know that Adrian Smith was Nordstrom's choice of architect. Barnett had previously said there would be no spire, but who knows how much influence Nordstrom had on the design. They do own the store and the site, Extell owns the tower above. Maybe a compromise? Or maybe the other 57th Street towers were getting to close in height, or maybe it's just the architect doing what he does - designing a building. I think we sometimes read too much into it. If the spire is built, it'll just be another building with a spire.


A comparison with his Trump spire...

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...-Elevation.jpg_https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2171/...241a5689_z.jpg
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/07/nor...-building.html

bk bob

I really like the spire on top of this building as it's been rendered this far. The spire completes the almost pop art does abstract feeling the design has. A very distinct image and another interesting addition to the skyline.

At least we know the trees will be safe...



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156585611/original.jpg

I'd certainly welcome a nice spire on 57th street. The skyline needs variety. 432 PA has a flat roof, One57 and 220 CPS nice crowns and 111W a glass spire / crown. So yes, 217W should absolutely add a spire.

I love your enthusiasm, but the above is meant as hyperbole right?

I don't think so. The current skyline transformation is even bigger than the one in the 1920s/30s.

Why is it that with all the NYC threads, you have to search and search for renderings? Isn't it supposed to be the standard that the first post in a new building thread is supposed to have all the key data including renderings?

Good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

I have not thought of that but I do agree with you. Also I should add that some thread starters were banned or are no longer active so maybe that is why the first post were never updated.