SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT

Viewing Page 385 of 407

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)

- - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 9133707)

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...g?format=2500w
Credit: FC

Is that a stellar observatory on the building at the lower right? I thought the city had too much light pollution for observatories?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visionist (Post 9139987)

Is that a stellar observatory on the building at the lower right? I thought the city had too much light pollution for observatories?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherfurd_Observatory

Last post 1st pic: One side of CPT sans blue film......niiiice.

Someone made a comment about RV slideouts and now I can't unsee it.

The design is so messy at the crown on the east facade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 9148601)

The design is so messy at the crown on the east facade.

Yeah, it's a pretty average building. It's best attribute is that it's tall. Even 432 Park Avenue is a better design, and it's a freakin' Tetris board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 9148601)

The design is so messy at the crown on the east facade.

That's left over from when there was a spire planned.

so what WAS the reason for ditching the spire? Costs? Not wanting to go over the ridiculous "gentleman's agreement" with 1 WTC being NYC's tallest?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209 (Post 9149617)

so what WAS the reason for ditching the spire? Costs? Not wanting to go over the ridiculous "gentleman's agreement" with 1 WTC being NYC's tallest?

There is no gentleman's agreement. Gary Barnett said from the beginning that he didn't want a spire, and I guess he stuck with it.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJq6UXSjd-W/

https://instagram.fjog3-1.fna.fbcdn....c2&oe=601F0620

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJPAh-wFfTM/

https://instagram.fubp1-1.fna.fbcdn....76&oe=601CFF70

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 9148601)

The design is so messy at the crown on the east facade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 9149427)

That's left over from when there was a spire planned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 9150497)

Gary Barnett said from the beginning that he didn't want a spire

And yet the architects designed the crown in such a way to accommodate a spire? Perhaps they did this just in case Barnett would change his mind? (Some of us surely hope he will!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard (Post 9151046)

And yet the architects designed the crown in such a way to accommodate a spire? Perhaps they did this just in case Barnett would change his mind? (Some of us surely hope he will!)

I don't know why they did, but it was a surprise when we saw it. I will say this, it was obviously better with the spire, so maybe they were hoping that alone would get it built. And presumably Barnett went along with it as well, because construction documents submitted to the DOB show the plan in detail that was in the process of being built. But for whatever reason, it was dropped again. The height of the tower (minus spire) was slightly increased.

https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...8wzMoh.c19.JPG

https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...Eo6btC.c15.JPG

https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...FvXXaW.c18.JPG https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...srMYoN.c20.JPG

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJbht2sBQQo/

https://instagram.fcgk8-1.fna.fbcdn....b8&oe=602028DE

A shame, as with the spire now it would be 1798' and finally put the WTC-1 spantenna out of its (and our) misery

Viewing Page 385 of 407