Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard
Hmm, I didn't realize that the hotel component would be such a small portion of the whole tower; I was expecting at least 50%. In this case I am less pessimistic about the height. It might still take a substantial vanity height to exceed 1600 ft, but crowns and spires are fairly common for mixed-use buildings especially those dominated by office use, so as long as Grand Hyatt is feeling ambitious, it may indeed happen.
1725 ft would be exciting, but even better to add another 52 ft of vanity height to beat the 1WTC! I hope it's a well-designed crown, not a skinny spire like the 1WTC's or NYT's.
|
I want that height not so much just because it's tall (always exciting), but I don't want too many towers too close together of similar height. 270 Park is already very close in height to Vanderbilt. A tower here of similar height would be a throwback to that earlier rendering of fraternal twins. I want a tower with as much or close to as much of a height differential with Vanderbilt as Vanderbilt has with the Chrysler. That would leave each of those 3 buildings distinctly different, but allowing for all to shine. And it would be pleasing to the eyes.
Ignore the ring here, but fraternal twins on this site I don't really want. If we get twins, let them be real twins.
None of this...
That being said, the zoning envelope would call for a tapering tower anway, whatever form that takes.
Threaded Mode