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)

Ploppalopp Mar 3, 2015 1:20 AM

I think you guys are getting a bit ahead of yourselves. We haven't even seen any real renderings , so how can we say that this building is so "horrible". At worst, its a tall and uninspiring tower. There are plenty of those around...so just give this one a chance to show how good it will be. I predict it'll look pretty darn good but that's just me.

Zapatan Mar 3, 2015 2:27 AM

Judging this building by the rendering JR Ewing posted isn't fair since it looked faar better in the colored, detailed official renderings that were revealed.

From NYYimby, it looks great in this pic

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...Tower-View.jpg

JR Ewing Mar 3, 2015 2:47 AM

That's an amazing tower !

BrownTown Mar 3, 2015 2:51 AM

I don't even get what people here want. All they do is bash pretty much every single proposal that comes along. If you guys are all such architectural geniuses then why isn't anyone paying you millions of dollars to design buildings? Besides, the people designing these buildings don't care what a bunch of middle class nobodies on the internet like, they care what their Billionaire clientèle likes. Not to mention that most of the problems people have with the design of the tower are things that CAN'T be designed away. There is a store at the base of this tower and they can't have a symmetrical design because the core of the building would be stuck right in the middle of that store. The massing pretty much HAS to be this way. The architect has to work with the site and the specifications he's given.

jsbrook Mar 3, 2015 7:48 AM

It's not bad. It's decent. I don't like the antenna (yes, it is far more antenna than spire). I don't care that it adds height. The tower would look far better without it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6934922)
Judging this building by the rendering JR Ewing posted isn't fair since it looked faar better in the colored, detailed official renderings that were revealed.

From NYYimby, it looks great in this pic

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...Tower-View.jpg


NYguy Mar 3, 2015 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6933702)
2.28.15

Work is slowly progressing. Iron beam platform in SE coroner has already reached street level. Also South and West walls has been built for what looks like beginning of a core.
Concrete support walls are almost done except half of North side wall.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8630/...ece2f269_o.jpg


https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8655/...02996ff7_h.jpg



https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8631/...e1478fbe_h.jpg

Thank you sir.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Ploppalopp (Post 6933763)
I wish we could get some renderings so we know what it will look like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6933775)
It is unchanged.


Yes, yes, renderings will make a world of difference here. We appreciate those drawings, but they aren't renderings. We need official renders that give us an idea of what the tower will look like,
what treatment of the glass we will get, exactly what that spire will look like (will it be nicely designed or simply a toothpick like the spire on Trump Chicago), lots of questions to be answered.
And we demand renderings.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6934151)
Remember; AS+GG designed what looked to be a beauty, to ultimately win them the contract, at which point it was then apparently VE'ed to hell by Barnett.

Can't forget about that.

Le'ts hope he can still give us something befitting of New York, like we're seeing with 111 W 57th and the Tower Verre, something that will stand proudly with the others. It's all in the details,
which we haven't seen yet.

We should have something that makes Barnett stare at the model like this...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157583035/original.jpg



But regardless, we will be happy when a crane goes up on site.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157713311/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157713309/original.jpg

vandelay Mar 3, 2015 11:23 PM

It's a shame that that design didn't work out. It would have gone very well with the similar spires of 157 and Steinway.

Busy Bee Mar 3, 2015 11:44 PM

^I still have a hard time of believing, and understanding, the excuse of "crane logistics" as the reason given as to why that design could not be built. It almost sounds made up. I think that modern constructors could built just about anything with the equipment and technology they have these days.

chris08876 Mar 4, 2015 12:09 AM

Usually the reasons for certain designs not going through in terms of logistics is cost. More complex = more hard costs. But it can be built. Modern engineering and construction techniques can build a lot of interesting designs.

NYguy Mar 4, 2015 12:35 AM

http://www.millersamuel.com/wireds-p...igh-rise-boom/

Wired’s Phallic Take on the High-Rise Boom


http://www.millersamuel.com/files/2015/03/wired3-15.png


by Jonathan Miller
MARCH 2, 2015

pico44 Mar 4, 2015 2:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6934966)
I don't even get what people here want. All they do is bash pretty much every single proposal that comes along. If you guys are all such architectural geniuses then why isn't anyone paying you millions of dollars to design buildings? Besides, the people designing these buildings don't care what a bunch of middle class nobodies on the internet like, they care what their Billionaire clientèle likes. Not to mention that most of the problems people have with the design of the tower are things that CAN'T be designed away. There is a store at the base of this tower and they can't have a symmetrical design because the core of the building would be stuck right in the middle of that store. The massing pretty much HAS to be this way. The architect has to work with the site and the specifications he's given.



I bash designs I feel deserve to be bashed. I praise what deserves praise, which happens a lot. If this were a 700 foot building in Brooklyn I'd be quite pleased with what would be a significantly above average tower. At 1500ft, it's a disgusting money grab and a lost opportunity to create something special. Gary Barnett is a bum.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6936355)
^I still have a hard time of believing, and understanding, the excuse of "crane logistics" as the reason given as to why that design could not be built. It almost sounds made up. I think that modern constructors could built just about anything with the equipment and technology they have these days.



Replace the words "crane logistics" with "cheap bastard" and perhaps you'll better understand the decision making process. This is a man who took pride and even announced publicly that he VE'd Portzamparc into submission on One57.

NYguy Mar 4, 2015 2:57 AM

I think the jury is still out, so to speak, on what the final judgement of this design will be because we've seen little more than the massing (which itself can be judged).

But the reason I say it can still be a nicely designed tower is because so much will be in the details.

It calls to mind what David Childs had to say about the Freedom Tower, regarding the building he hoped for being stripped down...


http://www.esquire.com/the-rebuildin...r-miracle-0115

Quote:

George Pataki's brief successor, the whoremongering Eliot Spitzer, came into office threatening to scrap the whole thing. Instead, the PA stripped it, piece by piece—starting with the Cube.

Side gardens? Dead. Pool? Dead.

Broad steps, where folks might sit and eat their lunch? Dead.

Stainless-steel spandrels? Shot through the eye like Moe Greene.

Again and again, David Childs went back to the drawing board. By 2008, he was clinging to his prismatic glass. Barely.

"This is a good office building, and the structure works. But there's another thing that this building aspires to—that other, final, symbolic, proportionate light-filled thing that inspires you. When the glass is on it, the faceted glass, with all the light going through and bouncing back—it's really going to be quite amazing. But we've got to get the right glass.

A simple building is not tolerant of cost cuts. It is dependent on the detailing, the right materials...."


Now, this is not to open a debate on the design of the FT, but rather on how the details can make or break a building, depending on your point of view.

This is a building that, despite the cantilever and various setbacks, is really a simple one. But I think it can work if the finer details are what I expect they will be. I'm not ready to throw it up there with the designs we have seen like 111 W. 57 and 53W53, but it could be very nice. We just don't know yet. However, if what we're shown sucks, I'll be among the crowd throwing bricks...:eviltongue:

BrownTown Mar 4, 2015 3:00 AM

I just don't get how people can look at a building where their entire life's work wouldn't even be enough to buy the cheapest unit and call it "cheap". What the hell do people want from these towers? To be clad in gold? People need to live in reality and the reality is that the building boom in NYC now is probably the most exciting in our lives. If that's not enough for you then nothing ever will be.

pico44 Mar 4, 2015 3:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6936619)
I just don't get how people can look at a building where their entire life's work wouldn't even be enough to buy the cheapest unit and call it "cheap". What the hell do people want from these towers? To be clad in gold? People need to live in reality and the reality is that the building boom in NYC now is probably the most exciting in our lives. If that's not enough for you then nothing ever will be.



I didn't call the units cheap. The units could go for as much as $6000 a square foot. That isn't cheap. With all those expensive condos and a reliable tenant in Nordstrom, Barnett statnds to make an ungodly fortune. And you're right, I'll never be able to afford one. But if I could, I would make sure my money went to the developer who spared no expense not just on the interior details, but also the architecture of the external building (see JDS, Hines). I would do this not out of vanity, but out of a sense of responsibility to the public at large. Hell, I expect my neighbors to care about the outward appearance of their homes on my Westchester cul de sac; therfore--as a hypothetical investor looking for property in midtown-- shouldn't I feel an immense obligation to the city, state and country, when my home will become a permanently prominent part of the most iconic skyline in the world? Having no such purchasing power cripples me, for sure, you are certainly right about that. So I do what I can, I speak out on the forum that gives me a voice about such things. Is my outrage pointless? Probably, but I hope against hope that my criticism pierces that ball of slime that protects Gary Barnett and Harry Maclowe et al. Join me! Let them know their greed will not only shame them for the rest of their lives, but will live on after they die, as long as their monuments of miserliness mark the sky.

Zapatan Mar 4, 2015 4:30 AM

If they're really that cheap I hope they don't cut the height down or anything, I'm sure he'll go taller than 111 (so at least 1420+) I'm guessing, but I really want to see this thing top Sears and even pass 1500', it would be a nice trend setter in the US.

I must say though the whole one foot shorter than 1WTC thing is just beyond stupid. Who is honestly going to care?

mistermetAJ Mar 4, 2015 4:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6936619)
I just don't get how people can look at a building where their entire life's work wouldn't even be enough to buy the cheapest unit and call it "cheap". What the hell do people want from these towers? To be clad in gold? People need to live in reality and the reality is that the building boom in NYC now is probably the most exciting in our lives. If that's not enough for you then nothing ever will be.

It's simple. Most likely, I will never look out from the inside of this building. I will always look from the outside in. Therefore, I critique and criticize the external appearance of this building, from the street to the skyline. From the disjointed base to tacked on antenna. I couldn't care less who the building caters to or how much it costs per square foot. What I see is a structure forever intertwined with the fabric of the city and I want it to be beautiful. When it's not, I - a "middle class nobody" as you so eloquently put it in a previous post - come to a skyscraper forum, to interact with other architecture and skyscraper aficionados and discuss our opinions.

Citing the cost of a building as a means to defend bad architecture is hardly relevant to those looking from the outside in.

BrownTown Mar 4, 2015 5:27 AM

I get the antenna being stupid, but what else could anyone do differently? The base and the cantilever are practical necessities given the dual nature of this design as both a Nordstrom store and a high end residential tower. If you can come up with a better design for the plot of land this is on then i'd like to hear it. The massing on 111 West 57th Street is way worse than this tower and I don't see people bashing it. I'm quite certain people will be impressed by this building when it starts to rise and they can see something real instead of just a low resolution render.

mistermetAJ Mar 4, 2015 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6936815)
I get the antenna being stupid, but what else could anyone do differently? The base and the cantilever are practical necessities given the dual nature of this design as both a Nordstrom store and a high end residential tower. If you can come up with a better design for the plot of land this is on then i'd like to hear it. The massing on 111 West 57th Street is way worse than this tower and I don't see people bashing it. I'm quite certain people will be impressed by this building when it starts to rise and they can see something real instead of just a low resolution render.

Please explain further...

uaarkson Mar 4, 2015 10:15 PM

Please don't.

Guiltyspark Mar 5, 2015 12:03 AM

The massing of 111 is perfect.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:00 PM.

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