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)

NYguy Feb 4, 2014 10:02 PM


On the left, a building that doesn't know where ore what it wants to be.

On the right, a building that knows its place in the city, more visually satisfying as it rises complete.

Both versions are a little busy on the bottom third.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Feb 5, 2014 1:30 AM

For god sake the cantilever is in no way the issue here, personally without it this tower becomes completely mundane. At least to the untrained eye the tower will look moderately interesting from street level. The fact of the matter is that this tower (and 22 Thames) is blanditecture. Nothing but a glass box, too tall to fail aesthetically on the skyline. This fact is made all the worse that on 57th street there is 432 Park which is another tall tower of nearly the same height with the same boxy massing...This is not a 2 WTC, Shanghai Tower, Greendland Center or Tower Verre...lets face it its a complete and utter failure from a trusted firm...Theres no one reason to place blame on this airfare,not the massing, not the cantilever . It has failed as a whole....Anything but a redesign that better respects both the skyline and street (not to mention its prominent location) would be a tragedy.

ILNY Feb 5, 2014 2:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6436495)

This buildings look like it was designed by struggling first year architecture student. Also, you can still see small cantilever in no cantilever version.

ILNY Feb 5, 2014 2:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6436189)
Why do they have to wait that long ILNY ?

Not sure why it will take 20 months to excavate, but is says right here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6207353)
Notification in May of impending excavation:
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/150392778/original.jpg


hunser Feb 5, 2014 11:00 AM

^ Iirc they have to dig about 80ft deep, so it will take some time. Anyway I'm really worried about the massing model, it just looks awful and not worthy of New York.

Perklol Feb 5, 2014 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6437651)
^ Iirc they have to dig about 80ft deep, so it will take some time. Anyway I'm really worried about the massing model, it just looks awful and not worthy of New York.

I sort of like the model without the cantilever. Where did you get those massing models?

hunser Feb 5, 2014 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6437656)
I sort of like the model without the cantilever. Where did you get those massing models?

From the pdf: http://theartstudentsleague.org/Link...M%3D&tabid=396

It's worth a read.

FMIII Feb 5, 2014 12:37 PM

Thanks for the answer ILNY and Hunser. :cheers:

As for the tower in itself, if the design is a bit awkward and overloaded at the bottom third, I like it.

From the render, the curtain wall looks promising and modern. It is tall enough to counter balance 432 Park and slender enough so it won't have a suffocating effect on the skyline.
I think that the cantilever version gives it a surprising and crazy side. Like if the tower was flirting dangerously with the limits of gravity. From some view points, it might give a dramatic effect, effect which seems underestimated at this time.

We know that the architect had to find a trick to fulfill Extell's needs (better views) and we know that developers will always put profit before design. So I believe people should be prepared to get this version. While being extremely critical, the best way not to suffer too much is to try, at least, to find some reasons to like it. :rolleyes:

NYguy Feb 5, 2014 1:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6437298)
Not sure why it will take 20 months to excavate, but is says right here.

It says excavation and foundation work will take 20 months to complete.



Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6437175)
For god sake the cantilever is in no way the issue here, personally without it this tower becomes completely mundane.

It's really the only issue at this point. There are other problems with the tower: Nordstrom design, lower massing, potential cladding, but we haven't seen enough of that to really dig into it. The cantilever is entirely another issue. Either it's there or it is not.



Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6437260)
you can still see small cantilever in no cantilever version.

Yeah, there is going to be some form of cantilever over the base. That's a whole lot different though than having the main shaft of the tower itself hanging off the side like some separate entity. You can clearly see it in the massings. One rises up a singular shaft with some setbacks and cantilevers of the lower levels. The other rises up as two buildings, the taller of the two shifting off the top of the other. It's really that simple for me. All other concerns come after.

Also, keep this in mind regarding the massing models...

Quote:

Both buildings were modeled by the ESC. The building with the cantilever was based on plans submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The building without the cantilever was designed by Michael Kwartler to follow the intent of the building with the cantilever as much as possible while removing the cantilever.


To read more in depth on the cantilever, read through the info packet the ASL made for its members to support it...

http://theartstudentsleague.org/Link...g%3D&tabid=396



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387242/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387243/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387244/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387266/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387267/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387389/original.jpg--http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387390/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387391/original.jpg--http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387392/original.jpg

1Boston Feb 5, 2014 4:35 PM

This reminds me of when I would build a tower out of Legos. I'd like to see this design with darker and maybe slightly greenish blue glass, I feel like that would distract the eye from all the craziness towards the bottom.

Onn Feb 5, 2014 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6437175)
For god sake the cantilever is in no way the issue here, personally without it this tower becomes completely mundane. At least to the untrained eye the tower will look moderately interesting from street level. The fact of the matter is that this tower (and 22 Thames) is blanditecture. Nothing but a glass box, too tall to fail aesthetically on the skyline. This fact is made all the worse that on 57th street there is 432 Park which is another tall tower of nearly the same height with the same boxy massing...This is not a 2 WTC, Shanghai Tower, Greendland Center or Tower Verre...lets face it its a complete and utter failure from a trusted firm...Theres no one reason to place blame on this airfare,not the massing, not the cantilever . It has failed as a whole....Anything but a redesign that better respects both the skyline and street (not to mention its prominent location) would be a tragedy.

It could be better, it could better! They could have done something with a bunch of smaller boxes, setbacks, or even something ending in a point (like Burj Khalifa.) It seems rather uninspiring. I wouldn't say a total screw-up but there's not a lot here to get the brain going "Wow!" The base is actually looking okay and I like the fa├žade pattern, but they have to do something more to jazz it up. :(

King DenCity Feb 5, 2014 5:08 PM

I like 1boston's idea if it was done well. Also they should have chosen what they wanted to do, not have a jumble of everything. ie (cut out top corner, random box base, cantilever).

NYguy Feb 6, 2014 12:27 AM

If we could only get SHoP on this tower. I'm sure they could figure it out. I don't see why this firm that is known for designing supertall buildings can't do any better than this, and maybe some of it has to do with conflicting Extell and Nordstrom purposes. But look at all of the other buildings going up with mixed-use intent. There can be some harmony.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387243/large.jpg

Swede Feb 6, 2014 10:02 AM

I really like the design. For once, I feel somewhat out of touch with the critique written about a NY supertall's design. I prefer the cantilever version, even with the lower height. To me, it looks more futuristic while not being outlandish in a way that would be impractical.

FMIII Feb 6, 2014 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swede (Post 6439293)
I really like the design. For once, I feel somewhat out of touch with the critique written about a NY supertall's design. I prefer the cantilever version, even with the lower height. To me, it looks more futuristic while not being outlandish in a way that would be impractical.

I strongly agree. It is a beautiful challenge to the laws of gravity. And paradoxically, the somewhat messy bottom third makes more sense with the cantilever.

NYguy Feb 6, 2014 2:33 PM

The problem with the cantilever for me is that it's as if there are 2 different buildings. The one connected to the street, and the one that floats above it. It shortchanges the tower's full height, something we don't want on a tower of this scale. That drawing, though not fully detailed, gives you a good reason why. Look at the base of the building (the Nordstrom) and look at the tower floating above the ASL. There is no connection between the two. A building half the size, I don't care so much. But we're talking one of the tallest (tallest by some measures) buildings in the City. I don't want to be cheated out of that. It would have helped a lot if there were no setbacks below - even with the cantilever. If the entire structure rose straight up from the Nordstrom to the very top, there would be a more unified appearance.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154402378/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154402379/original.jpg


The good news is that this isn't the only significant tower that will go up in town. It will have the height, but we will have buildings that I think are more appropriate for the City.

Submariner Feb 6, 2014 2:58 PM

Agreed.

It looks like two random buildings have been joined together to create this tower - there is little cohesion and frankly, aside from it's height, little architectural value. This building will be notable because of it's height but certainly not because of it's design.

Still, I can't help but think that this tower is going to get some kind of face lift. Since it's unveiling, we have seen two magnificent residential buildings take their final form - 111w 57th and 220CPS (with a possible third on the way). This is in addition to 432 Park and One57 - two towers with their own distinct flair and look. Remember, 30 Park Place is also rising - another distinctive building. I think residents want their building to stand out a bit, and I think they want it to look good. Style is subjective, but I can't see this building winning any awards or love from residents or the city alike.

Busy Bee Feb 6, 2014 3:35 PM

For me there is no, for lack of a better term, "sex" in this tower. You usually know it when you see it. For instance Tower Verre is pure sex. WTC4 is pure sex. Nordstrom tower is like lopsided tits and a crooked dick, together, and on top of that an ugly face. What a shame.

Submariner Feb 6, 2014 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6439491)
For me there is no, for lack of a better term, "sex" in this tower. You usually know it when you see it. For instance Tower Verre is pure sex. WTC4 is pure sex. Nordstrom tower is like lopsided tits and a crooked dick, together, and on top of that an ugly face. What a shame.

I know what you mean. When I think of good looking residential, I think of:

- 30 Park Place
- One57
- 432 Park (I think this one might be a bit more polarizing, but it's an iconic building for sure)
- 111W 57th (probably the best of the bunch)
- 220 CPS (might be tied with 111W 57th)

225w is just a massing of different boxes, with no apparent harmony or unison in design.

miesian Feb 6, 2014 4:09 PM

Does that mean you don't like it?:rolleyes:


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:21 AM.

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