^Sorry I don't think I quoted that/copied and pasted it correctly, but you all get the idea
More from James over at SSC: Hi all, Quote: Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post Thanks for the info. Do you work for Extell or the architect (or the gc)? Can you describe the design? Yes, kind of. I work for a company providing consulting and insurance services for Extell Development Company. Renderings were shown to a colleague of mine who then presented me the facts. The tower will have a curvy shape, with some setbacks. Cladding will mimic the green of Central Park. Also, the structure as a whole will be topped off by a magnificent crown which will be illuminated at night. |
Quote:
This design better be good... :slob: |
Again, does it not seem suspicious to any one of you who might be sulking right now that:
A) This height "information"--"bombshell announcement", if you like--was posted on our main competitor's page, out of pure ether, by someone who had not once before posted anything anywhere on the entire website? and B) This chap asserted with more than a bit of audacity to have garnered the information from blueprints? Blueprints, people. Having seen this post myself, I can safely inform the board membership here that this chap said nothing of how these alleged blueprints were accessed by him. Nor made he any mention of a firm he might've claimed to represent, i.e. by whom these blueprints are held supposedly under lock and key. Now...The conclusion I make from all this is that publicizing details of blueprint held by a firm, without said firm's expressed permission, ain't too kosher...especially since there seems to be no idea of who this info leaker is or who he's affiliated with. In short, I don't see much in the way of legitimacy in this story. 2 plus 2. Just saying...........and BTW/FTR, I still call shenanigans. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Perhaps it's a person who occasionally visits the site, or has seen it before in passing and decided to post with their inside info. I hope you're right though |
It would seem that the discussion concerning this tower is letting fly with some interesting details, indeed...and, admittedly, rather to my chagrin and dismay.
A post made by a forumer named JamesDL reads as follows (BTW former SSP colleague Robert Walpole is a frequent participant in the thread where the post below is found): Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/re...gTFsI13vHl2yxQ A salient snippet: Quote:
Yet another article from an e-pub called Iconeye.com, entitled "Towering Ambition", reads thus: Quote:
|
I believe the guy. People that come and leak info out like that really have no reason to lie and he sounds very legitimate.
Anyway, it is disapointing but if the design is great then that is the saving grace. I'd rather have a shorter, great looking building than a taller, boring box or even ugly eyesore. I'm just guessing but do you think we can blame Nordstrom for the change in height? I mean, Extell had a HdM design that went to 1550 ft but when Nordstrom came on board, they ask to change the design, the architect firm and now we see the height has changed as well. :( |
BTW, apologies are due to Jackster99 who posted the exact same details from the design (semi-)leaker as I just did. It was not my intention take undue credit for discovering some new revelation.
Just call me a day late and a dollar short......... PS: Judging on this information, why they would put up a mere 36' crown (1,253-1,217 if those are the measurements they're going by) is somewhat odd. One more point and I'm done. If this redaction in height is true, than I suggest that this tower will be just a bit taller than the top of 1WTC's mech floor facade vents. It'll also be taller than One57 than one might perceive. |
Thank you for providing a link to those articles. It seems like it will be 1253 ft after all...
|
The design sounds promising, but a 300 ft haircut is quite disappointing.
|
Well, the potential was good to think about as it lasted.
|
I don't see any reason TBH to call it a height decrease, since the figure presented (1550) has been perceived from the start--at least by me...and, quite frankly, should've been by all of us as a hedge against extreme overconfidence--as a hypothetical maximum.
It ought not to have been put out as a conclusive number carved out of a pair of tablets that someone brought down from an exalted summit where the face of God Himself can be seen, and the eyes of the beholder don't melt out of their sockets. It would be safer--if not necessarily better, or in any way satisfying--to lowball it, especially since Mr. Barnett himself was the one who suggested that in the first place. |
Again, I'll remind everyone that this is not the supertall discussion thread.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I also have a few points about this tower that I've noticed. First of all, in regards JamesDL over at SSC leaking that this tower will have green cladding, I think it even further strengthens his insider knowledge, considering Adrian Smith's love for making his towers contextual. Since the green cladding is supposed to pay homage to Central Park, that sounds pretty contextual to me. Also, in regards to this thing's height of 1253 feet (if it is indeed true), I think the reaction here and over at SSC just goes to show how spoiled we have all become in recent years. Just 6 years or so ago news of a 1253 foot tower would have been mind boggling, instead now we just moan that its not as tall as 432 park avenue or as tall as it could have been. We also have to remember that if those permits with the 1550 foot height had never been discovered or filed, then this height wouldn't even be news and would confirm what we would have been suspecting all along. Finally, in regards to Extell filing the 1550 foot permits and then not following through on that does seem a little strange. But it occurred to me, perhaps Barnett did that as a bargaining chip for when this 1253 foot version is unveiled? I know this tower is being built as of right, but even still, at this height and so close to central park, its bound to make some enemies when it gets unveiled. But perhaps when that happens, Barnett can just say "look guys, I could have built this baby 300 feet taller (see permits), so consider this 1253 foot version my gift to you. But don't piss me off to much, because I might change my mind and create an even bigger shadow over your favorite place to tan!" |
I don't trust it.
The previous info was 1550' to the highest occcupiable floor and their was rumors of going even higher, Barnett also has seemed hellbent on building the tallest tower in Manhattan and the USA by roof height. And who takes that long to build a tower of that height? The ESB was built in a little over a year not the almost 6 years of this project. I have met people like this before and they say things that either they want to be true or the say the opposite to mess with people, when in fact this guy probably has no ties to the company or the project at all. Even So, If we're gonna believe rumors here then remember the "Big New Supertall Announcements This September" that have been floating around. In short, Bull $**T. :| |
Just wait until we hear more from Extell itself, formers have jumped the gun before on such rumors. It's possible the height could go either way, it all depends if Extell want's to admit that 432 Park is tallest residential building in the city and taller than its own towers. It's funny how this guy popped up right after someone posted an old article on SSC that the tower would be around 1,200 feet. Seems a little suspicious to me!
|
^And Fake :)
|
Green cladding? :yuck:
|
^Don't trust it, everything seems fishy and it seems like this guy got what he wanted... attention.
PS. Suddenly going from no spire or crown to having them? Let's be realistic people, these are the same guys who designed Kingdom Tower and Burj Khalifa... Don't u see some inconsistency? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.