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

[cadiomals]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think for the scale of the project, the units, and the money involved or that can potentially be generated through sales of units, and by Nordstrom, I don't think we will get anything fancy on the level of detail seen in One57 or Tower Verre. Business will override aesthetics when necessary and this is one of those cases.

It doesn't have to be as fancy as Tower Verre, it just has to look decent. This site says the tower is proposed for completion by 2018. 5 years is more than enough time to make the minor changes necessary so that this tower doesn't become a blight on the skyline. The setbacks should be consistent instead of random, they could opt not to make the facade purely glass, and they could add one or more repeating elements to add a sense of coherent design. Even though 432 Park Avenue might be a very simple design at least it has a coherent pattern. The fact that out of all the designs this is what they come up with shows laziness, nothing else. They have enough time and money not to botch what could be the tallest building in NY.

[JayPro]

Courtesy of SSC poster Xoltage on his 18th post, we have this future view of NYC, ideally sometime before year '20:



I notice two oversights (though through no fault of the pic-maker as the original intent here , I assume, is to show Nordstrom and 111 with 432P):
1. 425 Park and 99 Church seem to be missing...unless Church is the superimposition to the left of WTC3. In so then it's 80 South that needs filling in.
2. Verre seems to be perhaps a bit too far to the right.

THe huge tower in Midtown's literal heart I assume to be the 1 Vanderbilt Proposal.

The Hudson Yards et al. area seems deliberately vague in its composition perhaps due to the jury being out on final designs, more so than what will go where. They also could or even should be a smidge taller.

Overall, the aforementioned will play a significant role balancing the skyline against the Park/7th St swath, which in itself will bookend the whole skyine with the WTC complex and its environs.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Courtesy of SSC poster Xoltage on his 18th post, we have this future view of NYC, ideally sometime before year '20:



I notice two oversights (though through no fault of the pic-maker as the original intent here , I assume, is to show Nordstrom and 111 with 432P):
1. 425 Park and 99 Church seem to be missing...unless Church is the superimposition to the left of WTC3. In so then it's 80 South that needs filling in.
2. Verre seems to be perhaps a bit too far to the right.

THe huge tower in Midtown's literal heart I assume to be the 1 Vanderbilt Proposal.

The Hudson Yards et al. area seems deliberately vague in its composition perhaps due to the jury being out on final designs, more so than what will go where. They also could or even should be a smidge taller.

Overall, the aforementioned will play a significant role balancing the skyline against the Park/7th St swath, which in itself will bookend the whole skyine with the WTC complex and its environs.

Need more supertall

[antinimby]

Need the two skylines to merge into one.

We can all dream, right?

[Busy Bee]

No way, the polarized skylines is what makes it so awesome!

[King DenCity]

^^^ I have a feeling there will be more towers than that by 2020

[Onn]

By the year 2100 I do foresee more supertalls in New York City's future, and at least one megatall too. Seems like New York City is going to enjoy a prolonged period of economic strength and global popularity, interspersed with some down periods. But I would expect more supertalls, glassy, lots of them. Whether they're going to cover Tribeca and around Central Park I don't know, but there are going to be many more. The Gotham City of the 21st Century will probably take on a life of its own different from the 20th Century version, but still New York of course!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by wilfredo267

Was not the illustration a rough massing model from the presentation that was used to approve the cantilever?

No. As the model suggest, the building form will be what it is.

Originally Posted by Streamliner

I think Banksy wrote his op-ed on the wrong tower.

Bansky would have been lucky to get more than a glimpse of this tower. But maybe Barnett will feel more inspired to create something more worthy of the city's skyline. More renderings haven't been released because they are still tweaking the design. Looking at what's going up nearby, just maybe Barnett will feel inclined to put up more than mediocre garbage. I'm sure Stern's tower will be of high quality. All of these towers will compete for buyers, and all will be high end towers. At some point, you've got to factor in attractiveness, or at least something distinctive.

I still believe that the Nordstrom's opening will generate more buzz than the tower itself, regardless of it's height. There are just far more people into shopping than skyscrapers.

[TouchTheSky13]

I dont know if what is shown is the final design. I hope they fiddle with the deisgn a little and add a little more detail, but I don't think this is a bad tower. It's like a combination of 3 Hudson and Citcorp. It's almost like a Sears Tower on stilts. It's a little awkward and im sure much better can be done, but it's not that bad.

[JayPro]

This whole kerfuffle redounds to this:

A seemingly decent majority of veteran posters on this site, one Mod included, seem resigned to the conclusion that the model as presented at the CB5 meeting is the final design.

OTOH, a seemingly decent majority of longtime SSC posters, ex-SSP contributor Robert Walpole included, point to the physical model as purportedly on display at the Smith/Gill offices as the working model, if not final iteration.

Believe as you wish, but I will say this. The CB5 drawing that was alleged to be available at the Smith/Gill website was not there. I looked all over.

Either/or, chaps. One side's got to blink first.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13

I dont know if what is shown is the final

There will most certainly be more detail, even if we end up with the same exact rendering.

Originally Posted by JayPro

Believe as you wish, but I will say this. The CB5 drawing that was alleged to be available at the Smith/Gill website was not there. I looked all over.

^ I wouldn't expect that to be on their website.

One thing is certain - the massings of the tower, be it whatever glimpses we have seen so far, are pretty much the same thing. As has been pointed out, the cantilever is approved, and Barnett will most certainly use it. We're pretty much stuck with the tower being in the form or "mass" if you will, that we've already seen. Whatever finer details they may add won't change a thing for me. What would make it better for me is if they lose all setbacks, even if the cantilever stays. I would love to have a tower that tapered to a point, or a nice spire (which Barnett had ruled out), something that complements the skyline - it will be the king of Midtown after all. But all signs are pointing against that. So, unless Barnett decides to move in a totally different direction (it could happen, though it's getting late), I'd say don't be shocked when the renderings reveal a tower not unlike the one we've seen.

[nomad11]

Interesting article, where a spokesman for Extell says the design is "still a work in progress"

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2013/1...ign-for-condo-tower-on-billionaires-row/

[tdawg]

the rendering that Curbed posted of the cantilever from the ground is astounding. It reminds me a little bit of the building I work in (601 Lex).

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/05...or_extells_new_57th_street_megatower.php

[JayPro]

Well, here's *another* media/PR blunderfuck.

Why the hell are they releasing "initial renderings" when a source close to the project is directly quoted as saying that the design is a WIP???

Once again I'm betraying my ignorance; but isn't (or, ideally IMHO, shouldn't) the idea supposed to be to not release an official render until every singe design element--controversial or not--has long since been decided and ready for implementation?? You know...hands on the plow and not looking back??

Both Curbed and WSJ are exercising slipshod journalism, especially when directing their readers to the S&G site for perusing those "drawings".

Ytf can't anyone involved in this whole drama get anything right???

[pico44]

Originally Posted by tdawg

the rendering that Curbed posted of the cantilever from the ground is astounding. It reminds me a little bit of the building I work in (601 Lex).

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/05...or_extells_new_57th_street_megatower.php

Yeah. I'm impressed by it as well. I think if built as shown, it would be safely ahead of 432 and One57 in terms of quality architecture; and way behind the SHoP tower, and way way behind the MoMA tower.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Well, here's *another* media/PR blunderfuck.

Agreed.

Putting out no press release is better than a half-assed one.

[NYguy]

It's a work in progress, but I keep telling you folks not to expect a tower unlike the renderings presented.



http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2013/1...o-tower-on-billionaires-row/?mod=WSJBlog

Initial Renderings Reveal Design for Condo Tower on ‘Billionaires’ Row’


By Eliot Brown
November 5, 2013

A spokesman for Extell, George Arzt, said the renderings showed a “work in progress,” and the building is “not a finished product.”

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

Still holding on to the slim hope that Gary Barnett pushes for a change, but it's getting later by the minute.

[BiggieSmalls]

contrasting materials it will make it look like a giant tetris

[JayPro]

I accept the fact that geometrically this tower is mostly if not all resolved. And I'm not gonna sit at this keyboard and do irreparable damage by crying into it until I see a new render that reshapes the thing into an octahedron with rounded edges.
At this point whatever work that's in progress has to IMO go into the skin, as has been said. I do hope that SG are better at producing facades than anything else they have or can in future trot out.

Could Extell/Barnett/whoever even at this late hour change architects as a long shot possibility? Or is the paperwork re the construction permit filings et al too far past for that?

[miesian]

All right, let's get it over with and call it "Compromise Tower".....