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)

generalscarr Nov 6, 2013 1:26 AM

Why would Barnett change the tower when he most likely has been overseeing the design process all the way and shaped the tower into what it is right now?

superMike Nov 6, 2013 10:11 AM

I have a question but it so off topic ... Do you know if the new mayor,Bill De Blasio,stop the new development for the city or go on the same way like Bloomberg ? It will good to know for the future of New York.

NYguy Nov 6, 2013 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superMike (Post 6328835)
I have a question but it so off topic ... Do you know if the new mayor,Bill De Blasio,stop the new development for the city or go on the same way like Bloomberg ? It will good to know for the future of New York.

No mayor of any city is going to stop development. The forces that control development are demand and ability to build (financing and property).



http://observer.com/2013/11/extell-f...-street-tower/

Extell Finally Reveals Renderings for Controversial New 57th Street Tower


http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...4213.jpg?w=262


By Kim Velsey
11/05/13


Quote:

The residents of greater 57th Street can finally get a good look at the tower that they so vehemently opposed. Renderings of the 1,423-foot tower, which recently won approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission to cantilever over the Art Students League, have finally been revealed in The Wall Street Journal.

The design, by Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill (the architects of the Burj Khalifa), shows a skinny glass rectangle shooting up, the cantilever at 290 feet one of its few distinctive flourishes. Unlike its flashier, undulating, two-toned neighbor One57 (designed by Christian de Portzamparc), this Extell tower presents a much more staid appearance. Except, of course, for its incredible height, which is about as showy as you can get. (One also expects that the street level signage for New York’s first Nordstrom, which will occupy the base of the tower, topped off by a luxury hotel and then super luxury condos, might add some flash.)


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153243890/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153243892/original.jpg

ILNY Nov 6, 2013 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6328324)
Still holding on to the slim hope that Gary Barnett pushes for a change, but it's getting later by the minute.


^So this is it.... how sad.

antinimby Nov 6, 2013 2:51 PM

That would have looked cool if this was 1985.

:(

Towersteve Nov 6, 2013 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6328934)
^So this is it.... how sad.

worse than I could have imagined :(

mistermetAJ Nov 6, 2013 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towersteve (Post 6328947)
worse than I could have imagined :(

EVERYTHING on this building sucks. Literally everything. Its massing. Its shapes. Its set backs. Its cantilevers. Its skin. How it interacts at the ground floor. How it interacts with the sky. How it interacts with the NYC skyline.

Truly, AS+GG are the worse architects to come to NYC. This is worse than any Kaufman or Poon midrise hotel. There was no respect give to 57th St or to Central Park. In fact, i would venture to say this is more offensive than 432 Park Ave. Truly despicable.

Local NYC architects and generally European architects always seem to get it right. American architects...:yuck:

JayPro Nov 6, 2013 4:44 PM

Ummmmm............

Does not one person here find it in any way peculiar that the WSJ hyperlink below the second pic in this article is dead?
It seems that WSJ deleted their 225W article--i.e. virtually the same one as this--from their website.
The assertion has been made--FWIW by Robert Walpole at SSC--that the WSJ removal was done at Extell's behest.

I'll wager half my bank account that Observer's gonna pull the plug on theirs and for the same reason...'coz it's essentially the same article.
Observer would've better served itself to not engage in copycat journalism.

And again...why no active hyperlinks to the Smith/Gill website? SG is credited for the images; but that's it. Matter of fact, there's absolute zilch on the SG site on this tower...No drawings. No press releases. Bupkiss. Has nobody even bothered to look to corroborate any of this???

I remain adamant in my belief that someone knows something that we don't. And I'll leave it at that.

Guiltyspark Nov 6, 2013 5:10 PM

I have noticed a patter on this website about how people feel about New York's residential Supertalls. At first, there is a ton of criticism and everyone hates them, then as they start to rise and people get a look at the actual building people start to love it. Then when it nears completion, people start to nitpick and say "at least we have _______ supertall going up in the region". Then repeat the process with _______ supertall. People who didn't like One57 were so excited for this tower, till they saw the render.

The only tower that has not seems to conform to this lately is Tower Verre.

But I have noticed it with 432 Park and One57.

I for one am going to give this one a chance. I wish it was a little taller so that it could surpass One World Mumbai.

Tectonic Nov 6, 2013 5:27 PM

This will be very easy & quick for them to build.

ILNY Nov 6, 2013 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6329102)
Ummmmm............

Does not one person here find it in any way peculiar that the WSJ hyperlink below the second pic in this article is dead?
It seems that WSJ deleted their 225W article--i.e. virtually the same one as this--from their website.
The assertion has been made--FWIW by Robert Walpole at SSC--that the WSJ removal was done at Extell's behest.
.

WSJ did not remove the article or both pictures. Here is the link: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...w/?mod=WSJBlog

ILNY Nov 6, 2013 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6329139)
I for one am going to give this one a chance. I wish it was a little taller so that it could surpass One World Mumbai.

Don't worry, it will surpass One World Mumbai as the ugliest super tall.

mistermetAJ Nov 6, 2013 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6329257)
WSJ did not remove the article or both pictures. Here is the link: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...w/?mod=WSJBlog

According to the WSJ article, the renderings show a work in progress and the project is still being worked on. This is good news.

JayPro Nov 6, 2013 6:55 PM

So I'm stumped as to why in the Observer article, the pic with the WSJ hyperlink directed me to (essentially) a 404 Not Found error.

fastdupree Nov 6, 2013 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towersteve (Post 6328947)
worse than I could have imagined :(

That's what most said about "432 Park" before it started rising. It seems most people who hate these new tall buildings in the beginning, start loving the same buildings once they see them being built. People are too quick to judge these days. Just be glad to get such a massive building like this. Would you rather have nothing at all in place of it? There will be plenty other skyscrapers taller and better looking in NY in years to come. I just think it's great how these giants are popping up everywhere in NY city these days. Don't complain but celebrate!

Blaze23 Nov 6, 2013 7:46 PM

I think it's a slippery slope when we start thinking that any tall building should be welcome in NYC. As a skyscraper enthusiast, of course I'm happy to see buildings pushing new boundaries in terms of height but I will trade that any day for a stunning design. Besides, if the thinking is there's always going to be a taller building coming up, what's to say the next building will look any better? To me that's a rationale for mediocrity and before we know it we'll end up with a bunch of tall, banal towers anchoring our great city's skyline. Developers don't have to put up a masterpiece all the time but when you build what is expected to be the tallest building in the city and given the location, one would expect a design that will catch the public eye, in a good way, which I obviously think this "massing" doesn't. But you're right in the sense that we should wait for the final reveal to make a judgement.
It should also be said that, I'm speaking for myself, but there was a certain intrigue when One57 and 432 Park were introduced, but I grew to like those towers, this one on the other hand has a massing that no matter what can be done to the curtain wall, will be hard to improve upon.

Guiltyspark Nov 6, 2013 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6329372)
I think it's a slippery slope when we start thinking that any tall building should be welcome in NYC. As a skyscraper enthusiast, of course I'm happy to see buildings pushing new boundaries in terms of height but I will trade that any day for a stunning design. Besides, if the thinking is there's always going to be a taller building coming up, what's to say the next building will look any better? To me that's a rationale for mediocrity and before we know it we'll end up with a bunch of tall, banal tower anchoring our great city's skyline. Developers don't have to put up a masterpiece all the time but when you build what is expected to be the tallest building in the city and given the location, one would expect a design that will catch the public eye, in a good way, which I obviously think this "massing" doesn't. But you're right in the sense that we should wait for the final reveal to make a judgement.
It should also be said that, I'm speaking for myself, but there was a certain intrigue when One57 and 432 Park were introduced, but I grew to like those towers, this one on the other hand has a massing that no matter what can be done to the curtain wall, will be hard to improve upon.

I think a lot of NYC buildings from the 50s have very strange massing (heres looking at you 1065 Avenue of the Americas). The massing on this one is strange too, but I think it sort of follows the old New York idea of getting all the space you can when you are limited by zoning. I also like the cantilever and think it will be incredibly impressive in person.

And remember guys, you really wont see the lower 200 meters of this tower from a distance, which is where most of the weird massing is. What we will see will be a very tall, thin tower. Like 432.

Not saying I love it, but I think it is a bit early to judge this one. I bet at least a few of you who hate it now will be declaring your love for it by the time it tops out.

King DenCity Nov 6, 2013 8:07 PM

^Agreed :|

Blaze23 Nov 6, 2013 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6329392)
I bet at least a few of you who hate it now will be declaring your love for it by the time it tops out.

I sure hope that turns out to be true but for now at least, it doesn't look good.

NYguy Nov 6, 2013 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ (Post 6329283)
According to the WSJ article, the renderings show a work in progress and the project is still being worked on. This is good news.

Well, yes, it is a work in progress. But as I've said, and was also stated in the article:

[quote]Still, the renderings give a sense of the general look of the Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture-designed tower

I don't know why people tend to leave that out, but the bottom line is what you see is pretty much the tower we will get. The potential changes won't create a different building.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6329300)
So I'm stumped as to why in the Observer article, the pic with the WSJ hyperlink directed me to (essentially) a 404 Not Found error.

No need to be. It happens.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6329372)
I think it's a slippery slope when we start thinking that any tall building should be welcome in NYC. As a skyscraper enthusiast, of course I'm happy to see buildings pushing new boundaries in terms of height but I will trade that any day for a stunning design.

Of course, so would I. I can't justify anyone's opinion (different taste for different folks), but my theory is that a lot of people have become so accustomed to "mediocre" designs. And that's something I don't understand, especially with planned towers like the Tower Verre and 111 West 57th. If anything, those towers should create more of a demand for better architecture. There are many things wrong with the current design, even at the ground level, but I just haven't gotten around to pointing them out.

I'm someone who doesn't require a whole lot for acceptable architecture. And I love boxes. This tower would be fine at half it's height - just another in the vast skyscraper sea of Manhattan. At it's current height, and with the legacy of Manhattan skyscrapers, it is grossly unacceptable. Of course, that won't stop it from being built.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 PM.

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