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

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by aquablue

The height increase makes this tower a beast indeed. I think you are right, the design is not iconic like WTC1 at all. It is a massive tower with a rather mediocre design surrounded by more iconic towers. WTC has an iconic monumental form and interesting geometry. Here, though the glass looks like it could redeem the dull massing. Although it is exciting to have the tallest tower, i am not sure it will be a hit with the public as it appears rather generic.

I'm not sure just how possible it is to have an "iconic" design in NYC these days. There are a lot of towers going up and I assume this means a lot of demand for construction labor. A complicated design would take more labor hours which would be an expensive proposition in a constrained labor market. Glass boxes might be cookie cutter, but they are also much easier to build and that's a big deal in a city where labor is so incredibly expensive.

[Onn]

This story is headline news on MSN right now, two clicks to the right on the big square.

http://www.msn.com/?ocid=iehp

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by hunser

Add the 80ft EL, and you'll get ~ 1,900 footer.

Finally we'll have a new tallest, by spire and roof height. So glad Barnett decided to go taller than 1WTC. Now I want a 2,000 footer ... Hudson Yards, Midtown East?

Exciting Times!

EDIT: The thread title NEW YORK | 1,795 FT pinnacle / 1,530 FT roof would have been labeled as VISION or FANTASY just a few years ago.

Although I am excited about this tower breaking the height constraint, I'm more interested in getting better designs than just height. What's the use of a 2000 footer if it just another box like 432 park or nordstrom? I dont' think that is very progressive nor do i think it adds that much to the city for most people (those who are not skyscraper aficionados). Hopefully future tallest designs will be more progressive and not backwards looking.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

I'm not sure just how possible it is to have an "iconic" design in NYC these days. There are a lot of towers going up and I assume this means a lot of demand for construction labor. A complicated design would take more labor hours which would be an expensive proposition in a constrained labor market. Glass boxes might be cookie cutter, but they are also much easier to build and that's a big deal in a city where labor is so incredibly expensive.

Yeah, you are taking a very pragmatic/economic standpoint here. I agree it would be difficult, giving the zoning laws and the factors you mention. However, just to build cookie cutter architecture on such a scale is pretty shameful and will be looked back on as shortsighted thinking by future generations I would imagine. Also, other towers going up around it are more interesting, so I am disappointed with Barnett for going so conservative here (given that this is the tallest in the world outside of Asia)!

[hunser]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I'm more interested in getting better designs than just height. What's the use of a 2000 footer if it just another box like 432 park or nordstrom? I dont' think that is very progressive nor do i think it adds that much to the city for most people (those who are not skyscraper aficionados).

New York has been boosting awesome designs since decades. What it lacks is height! I agree that height is not everything, but we are talking about a real skyscraper city here.
Verre and Steinway are both exceptionally beautiful and tall. These towers are masterpieces and are liked by a large majority. But in the case of Verre it will get kind of lost in the concrete jungle of Midtown. 1,050' is simply not enough to stand out.

Also, I'm not worried that the next tallest will be an ugly box.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by hunser

New York has been boosting awesome designs since decades. What it lacks is height! I agree that height is not everything, but we are talking about a real skyscraper city here.
Verre and Steinway are both exceptionally beautiful and tall. These towers are masterpieces and are liked by a large majority. But in the case of Verre it will get kind of lost in the concrete jungle of Midtown. 1,050' is simply not enough to stand out.

Also, I'm not worried that the next tallest will be an ugly box.

I agree it lacks height and that this is better than nothing, but i would have liked the tallest tower in the world outside of Asia to have something of a more interesting looking design as it's going to be front and center stage. But, c'est la vie!

If you look at Nordstrom on the diagram page and then see the stuff other places are building along side, the design just appears outdated and anachronistic. Sorry!

[kingsdl76]

It's amazing to think that if this tower had been built only 8 or 9 years ago, it would've been the worlds tallest for a short time. New York would've regained that crown; albeit for a short time.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by hunser

New York has been boosting awesome designs since decades. What it lacks is height! I agree that height is not everything, but we are talking about a real skyscraper city here.
Verre and Steinway are both exceptionally beautiful and tall. These towers are masterpieces and are liked by a large majority. But in the case of Verre it will get kind of lost in the concrete jungle of Midtown. 1,050' is simply not enough to stand out.

Also, I'm not worried that the next tallest will be an ugly box.

In the years immediately following 9/11 the city lacked height perhaps(or obviously) due to recovering from the attacks but once 1WTC and 432 pk av. came along that changed obviously and will only get better!

[chris08876]

At least on the plus side there's a gradual progression of height, and all of the supertalls once finished won't ruin the skyline, only add to it.

Worst thing for aesthetics is if a Burj Khalifa type, as a hypothetical, was proposed somewhere and lets say its built. Its too much of a difference. At least with surrounding towers flanking it or near it, it doesn't have that wtf moment when it just towers over everything else. A gradual buildup overtime adds to the skyline in a better way versus one single, dominating tower.

You tend to see the single dominating tower examples in some Chinese cities. It doesn't look natural whereas many skyscrapers of supertall status side by side (think Pudong), look amazing.

[KevinFromTexas]

This is a great looking tower. I actually really liked the old design for its random unique look, but this is going to be a beautiful tower. And the height.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I agree it lacks height and that this is better than nothing, but i would have liked the tallest tower in the world outside of Asia to have something of a more interesting looking design as it's going to be front and center stage. But, c'est la vie!

If you look at Nordstrom on the diagram page and then see the stuff other places are building along side, the design just appears outdated and anachronistic. Sorry!

I know where're you coming from and get your worries. But: I don't necessarily think that Nordstrom will stay the tallest for long. Especially Midtown East will boost a much larger tower, I'm sure of that. Just look and 1 Vanderbilt - the very first tower is a whopping 1,514'.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

In the years immediately following 9/11 the city lacked height perhaps(or obviously) due to recovering from the attacks but once 1WTC and 432 pk av. came along that changed obviously and will only get better!

I agree. New York could even host the most 400m+ towers (by roof height!), along with Shenzhen and Dubai.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

In the years immediately following 9/11 the city lacked height perhaps(or obviously) due to recovering from the attacks but once 1WTC and 432 pk av. came along that changed obviously and will only get better!

For me, the height isn't as important overall as the design and the experience on the street. I would take a plateau of 700 footers everywhere if each had an amazing design over megatalls with mediocre designs.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by aquablue

For me, the height isn't as important overall as the design and the experience on the street. I would take a plateau of 700 footers everywhere if each had an amazing design over megatalls with mediocre designs.

Yup. And that's the plus for this city. The superblock concept we see in other places would ruin the feeling. Supertalls separated by parks and plazas are boring, but supertalls side by side, with tons of other towers with no breathing room is a true urban experience.

Canyon effect is also neat. Gives the sense of never ending skyscraper streets.

I actually like the lower height plateau between Midtown and Lower. You could be standing in Herald Square, look North, and see skyscrapers until you hit the tree lining of the park... but... then you look South, and see another skyline. Its like it never ends, and I think its a cool visual perk to have. I think many who visit the city will be amazed once they see the other skylines forming or adding to their bulk in JC, LIC, DoBro, and so on. As a reminder, let us not forget the supertall that will rise in JC.

[hunser]

Step by step we are getting there ... the current Top 10:

1. 217 West 57th Street, 1,795ft (547m), [roof 1,530ft / 466m] U/C
2. One World Trade Center, 1,776ft (541m), [roof 1,368ft / 417m] Com
3. One Vanderbilt Place, 1,514ft (461m), [roof 1,414ft / 431m] Demo
4. 111 West 57th Street, 1,428ft (435m) Prep
5. 432 Park Avenue, 1,397ft (426m) T/O
6. 125 Greenwich Street, 1,356ft (413m) Prep
7. Two World Trade Center, 1,349ft (411m), [roof 1,270ft / 387m] On Hold
8. Tisham Spire, 1,320ft+ (400m+) Pro
9. 30 Hudson Yards, 1,269ft (387m) U/C
10. Empire State Building, 1,250ft (381m), [antenna 1,454ft / 443m] Com

[firecracker1995]

.

With buildings like that being built and the amount of them that are being built also, It makes me wonder how the city of New York is going to look at the end of this century. Is it going to be covered in supertalls and superthins, hmmm. Anyway I just don't know how this can happen. They don't choose to build such tall buildings almost anywhere else being im assuming because New York as a city is so far down the line timewise, I mean New York is the oldest city and is the most developed, its just a shame that I notice a lesser number of commercial ones being built. What im saying here is what are they going to do when every single property in New York is a huge new skyscraper? The things will be reaching past the clouds and perhaps even into space, maybe. Its just interesting to think about what they could possibly do with that city in the future. Of coarse there will probably be something that ends up threatening New York and by then all those tall and thin buildings that are there will snap like a tooth pick. New York's mass of its buildings might actually me a good thing for it. But buildings don't last forever and neither do humans.

[Roadcruiser1]

Just wait for the Shvo Tower. With this building being 1,795 feet tall Shvo might go taller next door. .

[babybackribs2314]

You can believe the person who has been completely tight-lipped and deliberately hidden any information at all regarding 217 W 57th or you can believe me who has the plans but the categorical denial in the NY Post was expected and I would not expect anything less from GB.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/11/plans-show-nordstrom-tower-may-be-tallest-building-in-nyc/

[NYguy]

^

...But Gary Barnett, who heads Extell Development, said the developer was absolutely keeping its word about not building higher than 1 WTC.

“The Nordstrom Tower will categorically not be taller than 1 World Trade Center,” Barnett told The Post late Monday.

Barnett should just stop making quotes. Why even make a statement that you may wind up eating later?

Originally Posted by aaron38

The other designs in that part of town have been so good about not putting fake antennas on top.

It's not an antenna, it's a spire, one integrated into the design of the tower. They've been around forever. Even 1 Vanderbilt will have one.

Originally Posted by hunser

Add the 80ft EL, and you'll get ~ 1,900 footer.

I don't get the hype about elevation. It doesn't really mean as much as some think it should.

Originally Posted by hunser

New York has been boosting awesome designs since decades. What it lacks is height!

New York has never lacked height.

Originally Posted by Labridniv

It makes me wonder how the city of New York is going to look at the end of this century. Is it going to be covered in supertalls and superthins, hmmm.

A simple look around at what is being built in New York will answer that.

I just don't know how this can happen. They don't choose to build such tall buildings almost anywhere else being im assuming because New York as a city is so far down the line timewise, I mean New York is the oldest city and is the most developed, its just a shame that I notice a lesser number of commercial ones being built.

There is plenty of new commercial construction going on in the city, you have just been focusing on the residential development. From Downtown, to the west side, to the revitalizing east side, large commercial construction - supertalls no less - is alive and well in the city.

What im saying here is what are they going to do when every single property in New York is a huge new skyscraper?

That won't happen. New York, like other cities, has zoning. What you see happening along 57th Street, with towers like the Nordstrom rising to new heights, is the last remaining development rights being consolidated into single locations. Once these towers are built, there will be no more development rights left to build such towers. In the vast majority of the city, even if you reduce it to strictly Manhattan, you couldn't even build towers of half this height. It's a very big town, and yes, in some areas you can build supertall skyscrapers. Doesn't mean the whole town will be covered in them.

[Hudson11]

if Barnett had his way, we would still be in the dark about the fact that this tower even has a spire.

[firecracker1995]

There is plenty of new commercial construction going on in the city, you have just been focusing on the residential development. From Downtown, to the west side, to the revitalizing east side, large commercial construction - supertalls no less - is alive and well in the city

That is good to hear!

[mrnyc]

from the post:


Plans show Nordstrom Tower may be tallest building in NYC
By Jennifer Gould Keil and Leonard Greene
May 11, 2015 | 10:03pm

Plans show Nordstrom Tower may be tallest building in NYC

New design drawings of the planned Nordstrom Tower were leaked on Monday, showing the residential high-rise plans have shot past 1 World Trade Center’s 1,776-foot height — which would make it the tallest building in New York.

A report on the New York YIMBY blog said the building at 217 W. 57th St. had added 19 feet — topping off at 1,795-feet tall, despite the developer’s vow to stop a foot short of the so-called Freedom Tower’s symbolic height, out of respect.

But Gary Barnett, who heads Extell Development, said the developer was absolutely keeping its word about not building higher than 1 WTC.

“The Nordstrom Tower will categorically not be taller than 1 World Trade Center,” Barnett told The Post late Monday.

The height of 1 WTC was set as a patriotic message to terrorists who took down the Twin Towers on 9/11. Barnett has said the Nordstrom Tower would top out at 1,775 feet, including its spire.

“When we were planning the building, we decided that we were going to make it less tall out of respect,” Barnett said last month. “I can’t comment on what other developers plan to do or what our final building will be, but that was the plan.”

The new tower will be anchored by a 200,000-square-foot Nordstrom store.