NEW YORK | 15 Penn Plaza (Hotel Penn) | 1,050 FT / 315 M | 52 FLOORS - Page 36

STR · #**701** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 2:41 AM**

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**702** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR

holy shit thats awesome! i seen that and it just had me staring at the screen in wonder and awe

godly job as always STR

yankeesfan1000 · #**703** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 4:11 AM**

For its size it's surprisingly elegant. Didn't think I'd like it as much as I do, it will certainly be a worthy addition, and the ESB does need some company. Thanks STR!

Roadcruiser1 · #**704** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 4:40 AM**

I am laughing. At first the ESB owners as of now might hate this building, but in the future it would be kinda like the Empire State Buildings best friend.

Onn · #**705** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 4:55 AM**

I really like this, it adds so much depth and height to the skyline. Hollywood would have a field day if it were built.

Just really hope it actually gets built. Time and time again we see this kind of ambitious proposal come along that ultimately fails. During good economic times I'm sure it would be built, but it hard to say when that might be considering we haven't really had that in 10 years now.

Troubadour · #**706** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 5:20 AM**

Mixed feelings over here. I always like adding new loftiness to American skylines; I like flipping the bird to NIMBYs and selfish property owners who try to stymie competition; and it's a reasonably decent design for a skyscraper in general. But...specifically, it's not very distinguished for a tent-pole skyscraper in Manhattan. This is the kind of thing you want to build five or six of at about 10% beneath the skyline ceiling. And that's not an argument for reducing this one's height so much as changing its design (or, in a perfect world, just making everything else under construction that much taller). Also, the feeling is more Hong Kong than New York. I'm sure I'll rationalize liking it if they actually build it, but that's my initial impression.

Onn · #**707** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubadour

Mixed feelings over here. I always like adding new loftiness to American skylines; I like flipping the bird to NIMBYs and selfish property owners who try to stymie competition; and it's a reasonably decent design for a skyscraper in general. But...specifically, it's not very distinguished for a tent-pole skyscraper in Manhattan. This is the kind of thing you want to build five or six of at about 10% beneath the skyline ceiling. And that's not an argument for reducing this one's height so much as changing its design (or, in a perfect world, just making everything else under construction that much taller). Also, the feeling is more Hong Kong than New York. I'm sure I'll rationalize liking it if they actually build it, but that's my initial impression.

Well I think it's kind of unfair to say it doesn’t belong in New York when none of these kinds of modern supterall towers have been built there yet. The country as a whole kind of missed out on the modern supertall boom the world is at the end of right now. Although it's not clear to me yet if building giant towers like these globally was just a phase or more will be built in the future. I'm leaning towards number 1, because of the sheer amount of capital it takes.

STR · #**708** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 5:44 AM**

15 Penn is actually very well proportioned. You look at it in the diagram and it looks incredibly fat, but that's simply not so. The bottom to top curves make for interesting angles. The bulk is well managed, the only other building in this scale that might do a better job of managing scale is Roger's 3WTC. All in all, one of the better designs out there anywhere. It's not groundbreaking, but groundbreaking designs often scream for attention. You don't need that here, size will do that alone. Furthermore, given the proximity to the historic ESB, it should be somewhat deferential. Not too much, mind you, but a balance. I think 15 Penn achieves that.

NYguy · #**709** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 6:27 AM**

Thanks, I've been waiting for that one.

STR · #**710** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 6:30 AM**

Well...there's like 4 more in the NYC2015 thread. Plus one more from the 1WTC obs deck that has about 20 more minutes to cook.

NYguy · #**711** Posted **Dec 21, 2010, 6:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR

Well...there's like 4 more in the NYC2015 thread. Plus one more from the 1WTC obs deck that has about 20 more minutes to cook.

Cool, I haven't had a chance to check anything today.

CoolCzech · #**712** Posted **Dec 26, 2010, 9:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

The space between the Empire State and the "pack" (roughly 34th to 40th St) could use some development, though some of those blocks are protected. It would have been interesting though, to see how the Manhattan skyline would look today had the MetLife been built to its original height. This would have put the tallest further south than the ESB currently does. (There's a thread in "never builts" I believe)

http://www.takethehandle.com/?p=15149

I wonder if anyone out there is considering finishing this tower, in a manner similar to the Hearst Tower? I would assume the air rights are a done deal...

Rail>Auto · #**713** Posted **Dec 27, 2010, 4:19 AM**

Everytime I see a render of 15 Penn Plaza and the ESB like that, I keep thinking they might as well paint them both yellow, put a bar between them, and kick a field goal

Lecom · #**714** Posted **Dec 27, 2010, 6:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubadour

Mixed feelings over here. I always like adding new loftiness to American skylines; I like flipping the bird to NIMBYs and selfish property owners who try to stymie competition; and it's a reasonably decent design for a skyscraper in general. But...specifically, it's not very distinguished for a tent-pole skyscraper in Manhattan. This is the kind of thing you want to build five or six of at about 10% beneath the skyline ceiling. And that's not an argument for reducing this one's height so much as changing its design (or, in a perfect world, just making everything else under construction that much taller). Also, the feeling is more Hong Kong than New York. I'm sure I'll rationalize liking it if they actually build it, but that's my initial impression.

It's a conservative design, and for the past 40 years, pretty much all supertalls in the US featured conservative designs. How is this not a New York/American design then? If it had some crazy avant-garte look, people would be claiming that it's too Asian-looking much more so than now.

Crawford · #**715** Posted **Dec 27, 2010, 8:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I wonder if anyone out there is considering finishing this tower, in a manner similar to the Hearst Tower? I would assume the air rights are a done deal...

I don't know if it can be done, but if it could, there's a potential tenancy issue.

11 Madison Ave. is the World HQ for Credit Suisse, one of the most powerful banks on earth. Their HQ is absolutely gorgeous, and they occupy the entire building on a long-term lease.

I assume there would be serious issues if the landlord built 1000 feet of office space above their workspace.

On the other hand, Credit Suisse is in growth mode, and is already cramped for space. Maybe they could work with the landlord to add to the building?

Who knows, maybe such preliminary discussions have already taken place.