NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by khaizer007

^^^ Yea, to each their own but there's nothing aesthetically pleasing about that Trump Tower. As far as best designed tower since the turn of the century in the US i'd take the Hearst tower or even NY by Ghery over that. As far as this tower, although I would've preferred Herzog & De Meuron to design it, I think Adrian Smith seems to be pretty good at designed really tall towers, but I hope for something more cutting edge considering the location of the building and how much it needs to stand out from the competition besides its height.

I would say that the Greenland Center and Kingdom Tower have pretty cutting-edge designs. I don't consider H de M's work more cutting edge, it is just more creative and artsy, but not more modern. Some of Smith's new Asian proposals would be worthy of a sci-fi fantasy city they are that forward looking.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Im crossing my fingers for a Greenland Center type of tower here.

[babybackribs2314]

Greenland Center is a heinous phallus. I would be quite upset if NYC had something similar. It isn't a developing city so I doubt it sees something like that, anyways.

[NYguy]

Remember, whatever the design, it will likely be built within existing zoning. A somewhat straightforward design in form, nothing too extraordinary. But so was One57, and that turned out great.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Onn

Trump Tower was also supposed to be a lot taller than it was, shortened because of 9/11.

Trump Tower Chicago is actually much taller than Trump wanted, at least if you're going by official height by spire.

Chicago's former mayor Richard Daley insisted that Trump included a huge spire, which was not in the original plans.

Trump did talk about building even taller prior to 9-11, but he never submitted anything officially.

[Dale]

I seem to recall that Trump totally freaked out after 9/11.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Onn

Trump Tower is the most "aesthetically pleasing" tower in Chicago. Hearst is nice but there's nothing that remarkable about it, Ghery's looks like a huge piece of twisted metal. I had hopes for the design but have come away underwhelmed. But to each his own...

I don't know if it's the most aestetically pleasing in Chicago or NY, but it's near the top, it's an gorgeous building.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

Greenland Center is a heinous phallus. I would be quite upset if NYC had something similar. It isn't a developing city so I doubt it sees something like that, anyways.

No its not, don't exaggerate. It's a beautiful futuristic tower. I suppose you think the Gherkin is heinous too b/c it is a phallus shape? Quite extraordinary that you could be upset over an amazing tower like that coming to NY just because it looks like a penis. Actually, its mind boggling for those of us who are bored with boxy towers.

NY Guy: You really are lowering expectations for this tower with your talk of straightforward and nothing extraordinary. According to you I should just expect another boring NY art-deco tower with setbacks or typical box? Is NY always going to be conservative and never build anything 'extraordinary'? How exciting. If so, NY has a serious zoning issue that is constraining innovation in design and it needs to be addressed unless the city wants to end up like Tokyo, corporate and dull gray office box towers everywhere.

The trump does not work due to its setbacks, they make the tower look awkward and off-balance. I would be extremely upset if a tower like that was built here.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aquablue

If so, NY has a serious zoning issue that is constraining innovation in design and it needs to be addressed unless the city wants to end up like Tokyo, box city.

I certainly hope that NYC remains primarily a city of boxy skyscrapers. That's the reason that NYC has such an amazing urban feel.

Weird, non-boxy footprints are inherently antiurban, which is why all those Asian mega-skylines (with a few exceptions) are all horrible at street level, and basically function as vertical suburbs.

Now a few non-boxy buildings are fine, but if too many proliferate, the pedestrian-oriented streetscape would be destroyed.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I certainly hope that NYC remains primarily a city of boxy skyscrapers. That's the reason that NYC has such an amazing urban feel.

Weird, non-boxy footprints are inherently antiurban, which is why all those Asian mega-skylines (with a few exceptions) are all horrible at street level, and basically function as vertical suburbs.

Now a few non-boxy buildings are fine, but if too many proliferate, the pedestrian-oriented streetscape would be destroyed.

I agree, but I'm talking about having a few stand out pieces that are there just to be different and iconic and NY zoning makes it difficult.

A tower can have an urban boxy base, but go crazy above street-level without impacting urbanity.

Also don't knock those 'vertical suburbs', would you rather them do US sprawl everywhere? Perhaps Chinese people like spread-out skyscraper towers rather than a hyper dense urban fabric in all parts of their cities.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by aquablue

NY Guy: You really are lowering expectations for this tower with your talk of straightforward and nothing extraordinary. According to you I should just expect another boring NY art-deco tower with setbacks or typical box? Is NY always going to be conservative and never build anything 'extraordinary'? How exciting. If so, NY has a serious zoning issue that is constraining innovation in design and it needs to be addressed unless the city wants to end up like Tokyo, corporate and dull gray office box towers everywhere.

You misunderstand. It's not a "lowering" of expectations to say a building will fit within zoning guidelines. To make it simple, lets just say don't expect anything freakishly out of place. Whatever is built here will be something special, but something that also fits in. "Stand out" doesn't always equal "great design".

[nycaddict]

Since they only just selected an architect to design the building does this mean we are still months off from when we will see a rendering?

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by nycaddict

Since they only just selected an architect to design the building does this mean we are still months off from when we will see a rendering?

The architect in charge probably already made a design, there was a design competition awhile back (one of the proposals by SHoP was made public) it's only a matter of time before we know what this one will look like. That amount of time might stretch out until after construction begins.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

The architect in charge probably already made a design, there was a design competition awhile back (one of the proposals by SHoP was made public) it's only a matter of time before we know what this one will look like. That amount of time might stretch out until after construction begins.

That was before Nordstrom was on board. We pretty much have an idea of what the massing will be like from the construction permit, but as we've seen with 432 Park, that isn't neccesarily final.





http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/12/19/b...ls-riverside-center-development-for-70m/

Extell, liquidating assets ahead of new tower, sells Riverside Center development for $70M



Gary Barnett, 1780 Broadway, the site of the new tower, and a rendering of Building 2


December 19, 2012
Christopher Cameron

Extell head Gary Barnett and partner the Carlyle Group yesterday sold the Building 2 site at the Riverside Center development for $70 million, as Extell begins raising capital for its new 57th Street tower — currently poised to become the tallest residential building in the United States, the New York Post reported.

The buyers of the complicated $420 million development were Dermot and AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust. The project calls for 616 residential rentals, retail space and a school and has a $275 million state Housing Finance Agency bond mortgage with credit enhancements through Bank of America and Capital One. The 640,000-square-foot Building 2, which is located at the southwest corner of West 61st Street, it will be known as 21 West End Avenue.

“We think we paid a fair price and the overall costs make this an excellent opportunity for us,” Stephen Benjamin, Dermot COO, said. The site was marketed by Andrew Scandalios of HFF.

On Monday, Extell announced that it would be hiring Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, the designers of the world’s tallest building, the 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa in Dubai, to design its new 1,550-foot 57th Street tower. In preparation for the massive project Extell appears to be liquidating select assets, according to the Post. For instance, Extell is closing this week on a $66 million deal for its 182-unit Westbourne apartment complex on West 137th Street. Bonjour Equities is the buyer and Georgia Malone of Georgia Malone represented Extell.

Extell also recently sold the leasehold on 175 Varick Strett for $32.75 million to WeWork and AEW Capital Management and Massey Knakal, on behalf of Extell, is marketing a garage, at West 24th to West 25th streets between Sixth and Seventh avenues, for about $85 million. In fact, Knakal has been marketing 59 of Extell’s buildings and is closing this month with 27 of those properties sold, according to the Post. “This is the best month in my career,” Robert Knakal said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/re..._the_barnett_high_fMTsZAf56Bht8rWU7fBVRJ

Setting the ‘Barnett’ high

By LOIS WEISS
December 19, 2012

Gary Barnett is busy shedding unwanted assets and amassing capital as he concentrates on skyscrapers such as the 1,550-foot Nordstrom tower on West 57th Street that will be the tallest US residential building.

Yesterday, Extell founder Barnett and partner the Carlyle Group sold the Building 2 site at the Riverside Center development to the Dermot Cos. and AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust.

The $420 million development, which calls for residential rentals, retail space and a grade school, has a $275 million state Housing Finance Agency bond mortgage with credit enhancements through Bank of America and Capital One.

Documents show the site sold for $70 million, but the equivalent land cost would be closer to $100 million as the developers have the added costs of building a school.

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/51934

Adrian Smith+Gordon Gill’s First Manhattan Skyscraper Among the City’s Tallest




December 18, 2012
Branden Klayko.

Extell Development made waves as when they announced their 1,004-foot-tall skyscraper One57 by Christian de Portzamparc on Midtown Manhattan’s 57th Street (which made headlines most recently for crane troubles during Hurricane Sandy), but their next project a few blocks down the street looks to climb even higher. Developers announced in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday that Chicago-based Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture will design an 88-story, 1,550-foot-tall tower on West 57th Street just east of Broadway, an area quickly becoming known for skinny skyscraper proposals.

Adrian Smith, a former design principal at SOM’s Chicago office, and Gordon Gill, a former design associate at SOM, are two of the leading authorities on supertall buildings, while at SOM and at their own practice. While at SOM, Smith was the designer of the world’s current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. In more recent years, AS+GG has retrofitted Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower), designed the Quintai International Tower in China, the Dancing Dragons towers for Seoul, Korea’s Yongsan Business District and the Federation of Korean Industries Tower, and taken on what could be the world’s next tallest tower, the kilometer-high Kingdom Tower in Saudi Arabia.

AS+GG’s new tower for Extell, their first in Manhattan, will stand 300 feet above the Empire State Building and taller than the World Trade Center excluding its antenna. It will house the city’s first Nordstrom department store with a hotel and residences above. The architects were selected from a pool of top name architects including SHoP and Herzog & De Meuron, who both are already working on towers in New York City. Extell president Gary Barnett told the Journal that Seattle-based Nordstroms actually recommended AS+GG for the job. No groundbreaking has been set and financing must first be secured, but the tower could be complete as soon as 2018.

[tdawg]

it's such an exciting time to live in NYC if you're a skyscraper and architecture fan.

[NYguy]

^ Yeah, we may never witness a decade like the coming one in our lifetimes, in terms of dramatic changes to the skyline.


Here's a view of the site looking down from One57...



http://13thwitness.com/post/33875246541/one57-2012

[Onn]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ Yeah, we may never witness a decade like the coming one in our lifetimes, in terms of dramatic changes to the skyline.

You're probably right about that, this boom could end up lasting a decade+. The stock market isn't supposed to hit its stride again until the late teens, and you know that's going to be another opportunity for new large scale projects. Banks, investors, and other financial services will be looking for more space that they lost during the recession. It's just a shame that all the other major US cities are missing out. Maybe that's because New York City's economy is such a juggernaut that no one else can keep pace anymore.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I certainly hope that NYC remains primarily a city of boxy skyscrapers. That's the reason that NYC has such an amazing urban feel.

Weird, non-boxy footprints are inherently antiurban, which is why all those Asian mega-skylines (with a few exceptions) are all horrible at street level, and basically function as vertical suburbs.

Now a few non-boxy buildings are fine, but if too many proliferate, the pedestrian-oriented streetscape would be destroyed.

The pedestrian-oriented streetscape has nothing to do with the shape of the tower. It has to do with the shape of the podium the tower sits on. As long as the podium is built to the lot line, the pedestrian experience should be fine (usually).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by J. Will

The pedestrian-oriented streetscape has nothing to do with the shape of the tower. It has to do with the shape of the podium the tower sits on. As long as the podium is built to the lot line, the pedestrian experience should be fine (usually).

Yeah, I agree with this. The base needs to be aligned to the street. Obviously there can be occasional exceptions, but if too many buildings aren't aligned to the pedestrian, you start to have a crappy streetscape.

And, yeah, if the base is aligned, the top can technically do whatever, and doesn't need to be boxy. But, in most cases, if you have a boxy base, that means the tower itself will be more likely to have a similar shape (because the zoning code has tough rules about setbacks and the like that means the base to some extent dictates the remainder of the tower).

I certainly want variety, like everyone else, but I don't want a Dubai-style mix of buildings, where there's no relationship with the street, or with the existing architectural landscape.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I agree with this. The base needs to be aligned to the street. Obviously there can be occasional exceptions, but if too many buildings aren't aligned to the pedestrian, you start to have a crappy streetscape.

And, yeah, if the base is aligned, the top can technically do whatever, and doesn't need to be boxy. But, in most cases, if you have a boxy base, that means the tower itself will be more likely to have a similar shape (because the zoning code has tough rules about setbacks and the like that means the base to some extent dictates the remainder of the tower).

I certainly want variety, like everyone else, but I don't want a Dubai-style mix of buildings, where there's no relationship with the street, or with the existing architectural landscape.

Dubai didn't have much 'architecture' of any consequence to have a relationship with before their boom. If they did, the city would have been all low rise and not very impressive. Dubai wanted to create a sensation, stand-out and create a global brand. You don't do that by 'fitting in with the existing architectural landscape unless its Paris or something.

Also, people don't walk much in Dubai due to the weather half the year (their bus-stations are AC'ed), so I don't think creating a dense urban walking grid of buildings with a street wall ever really mattered to them!

As for NY, if it wants to have some more architectural flair, it needs to be more daring in its design. The street wall can be kept, but the buildings could easily have more interesting shapes without ruining the urbanity. Zoning can always be modified which it should to fit the modern age IMO.