NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS

[Loqy Lion]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Please dont keep it to yourself, you input is amongst the greatest in the NYC threads. You said what you knew and thats all that can be asked.

Agreed.

Robert, you can always PM me some inside info if you don't care to share with the board.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Please dont keep it to yourself, you input is amongst the greatest in the NYC threads. You said what you knew and thats all that can be asked.

Thanks, amigo.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I didn't learn any lesson, nor do I need to.

I had very specific information about the likely height early on which was subsequently reported by newspapers, including the WSJ. That information led any reasonable person to surmise that an iconic design would follow if the developer was committed to an iconic height.

I subsequently received very specific information about the design and wanted to let people know about it so that they were not let down, as I was.

If people are dissatisfied with my service, I'll keep my information to myself in the future.

You forgot one thing mate! It may be reasonable to surmise that a marvelous and awe inspiring iconic design would be built at this iconic height, but you forgot where you are! This is NYC London will go to town on its few skyscrapers to get them accepted and built after decades of skyscraper hate. Shanghai has the economic drive to become a financial capital and builds for respect and prestige. NYC is established and has no such motive. Money is King and aesthetics usually play a back seat to practicality, costs and profit potential. The developers are hardly forced by the city to create beauty every where they go, blame the city laws or lack design oversight perhaps! I'm sure the goal was to create a low-key building in terms of design with stunning views (best in the city) that would appeal to rich people looking for privacy without a lot of pomp and artsy-fartsy hoo-ha. I'm sure a building like this would attract many people from places like Moscow or Shanghai who are looking for restrained elegance on the outside, but will go to town on the inside. The developers probably see that sometimes a simple design is preferred when it comes to selling luxury homes to extremely privacy conscious people in a risky economic climate and for whom ostentatious design might be a signal to go elsewhere.

This isn't a situation where the city needs to build a Taj Mahal like Shanghai or Dubai do, to create a destination through design.

Anyway, your information is of course welcome. I like the hype even though I usually temper my expectations.

I'm pleased enough with the tall proposal because (i'm a bit of a height maven ) my expectations were sadly far lower than yours regarding design given the location and developers, economic situation, and historical record. Yes, I love good and spectacular design, but in this case and in this economic climate, seeing midtown being restored as a real skyscraper center again is amazing.

In any case, the building could be scaled down which would mean you are correct, it would be a complete and utter let down

[Zapatan]

Why does everyone seem so upset?? We just got shown a proposal for a 1420 foot building in midtown manhattan, box or not, get over it!

Is the building not actually going to be built? is that it? Where is that info?

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I had very specific information about the likely height early on which was subsequently reported by newspapers, including the WSJ. That information led any reasonable person to surmise that an iconic design would follow if the developer was committed to an iconic height.

I subsequently received very specific information about the design and wanted to let people know about it so that they were not let down, as I was.

And if I had known that in the first place, I wouldn't have made a complete ass of myself with my constantly insisting that you name sources. You were privy to much information; and it only now seems to me that you were beholden to a pledge of confidentiality. I should've left it at that.

No matter now if Macklowe's now out of the picture, since Viñoly is also from what I can infer from that. At least this property's in more capable hands from what I've been able to read.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Why does everyone seem so upset?? We just got shown a proposal for a 1420 foot building in midtown manhattan, box or not, get over it!

Is the building not actually going to be built? is that it? Where is that info?

True. However, some people are less height interested and more design sensitive than other. Height to some with a poor design is considered an abomination that could ruin the skyline. I disagree though because the area is full of ugly plain boxy towers already and this box can only make the entire cluster more interesting due to its soar and slim profile. It will serve as an focal point to draw the eye above what is basically a plateau skyline full of 1960,70's, 80's and 90's boxy international and po-mo towers.

[STR]

Originally Posted by ChicagoSpire2000

Hey STR. Would it be too much to ask if you could give us a comparison of this and 1WTC? A building half it's width but taller then it's roof is insane.

I rendered my model as a diagram. It's based on the previously published massing model, so it's probably a little taller than what's being seriously considered. But...it's still skinny as hell.

[Antares41]

Well now that our expectations are being directed toward being underwhelmed, perhaps when the real design is out it will turn toward more enthusiasm for this project. Such is the roller-coaster ride of skyscraper construction in NYC.

Something this dominating in the skyline should be a bit more interesting to look at; being tall is not enough in my book. If this design stands, the architectural critics in NYC will likely hammer it to a rock pile.

Also, I found Robert's post interesting to read, so, I have not problem with the hype; he certainly played no role in the outcome. In fact, I found myself coming to the thread more often because I was interested in see what might be built.

Finally, Lets cheer the fact that something daring and dramatic is being plan, but, lets hope that it adds more to the skyline.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by JayPro

And if I had known that in the first place, I wouldn't have made a complete ass of myself with my constantly insisting that you name sources. You were privy to much information; and it only now seems to me that you were beholden to a pledge of confidentiality. I should've left it at that.

No matter now if Macklowe's now out of the picture, since Viñoly is also from what I can infer from that. At least this property's in more capable hands from what I've been able to read.

No problem, amigo. I know someone who saw a detailed model and drawings in Macklowe's office.

[JayPro]

So do you all think that Viñoly may be kept as the architecht despite this land rights transfer?

[RobertWalpole]

Definitely.

[401PAS]

If this is what it's going to end up being, I'm already asleep... I don't care how tall it is.

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=94370

[Dac150]

^^^ Again, it’s simply a massing model which implies the probable height. I find it extraordinary that this tower has the potential to be the tallest in the city by roof height.

[JayPro]

The following has been suggested, and is agreed to by me, both at great length.

1. This will almost definitely not rise to the height that this model shows. It may betray my ignorance to suggest that the 1,400' figure was extrapolated by taking the square footage of the plot, adding a few variables and working from that point. I say anything between 980' and 1,200'.

2. RW's model, by his own admission, leaves out some key details that will insinuate themselves into our ongoing discussions when they go public. Again, I must profess my interest in the model that shows the "Apple glass box" and what appears to be outer grid-work around the structure. This latter element will be quite interesting to watch unfold.

3. Sr. Viñoly will come through...assuming his services are kept.

[Zapatan]

^980 to 1200 would be great still, but it would be nice if it really could turn out 1420 feet. I don't see why they would have made the massing model 1420 feet though if it werent going to be in that ballpark heightwise.

I understand that some people are design oriented but to me there is nothing ugly about a box, there is just nothing that beautiful. But wf the glass is nice it could be fantastic.

PS. I'm aware that's not the final design.

Anyways, best of luck to this project, NYC needs a tower higher than WTC1 roofwise. After all, it is the king city of skyscrapers!

[JayPro]

I must disagree on maybe one or two points there.

While NYC is deserving of some cutting-edge architecture---which it's already getting in One57, Tower Verre and the new WTC complex---the people there do pride themselves on two things:

1. They strive to make sure that ESB is not overshadowed in height. Even though West Side construction will make it more of a true center-point instead of a detached peak, there's too much treasured history to change the height standard. After all, what other structure of its scope and mass could brag of decisively winning the competition for world's tallest during the Great Depression...and within its own city? Do you even realize that almost no skyscraper construction in this country took place throughout the '40's? That speaks of ESB's sentimental value to people in my area especially.

2. It's important to keep in mind that that the purpose of rebuilding Downtown is to make what goes up there taller and better than before. While infrastructural matters there can now be addressed that the presence of the Twins could not otherwise allow--i.e. mass transit considerations, street access etc.--symbolism rules the day. WTC One is the focal point of this renewed vigor and should remain so. No reason exists why a tower on 57th should overtake that, regardless of what gets built.

I live thirty miles east of the City Limits, which makes me somewhat of an outsider as to what folks who live within them believe in their hearts.
One of those beliefs, IMO, is that while it is a city of skyscrapers, and monumental ones at that, there's a lot more to brag about.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by JayPro

The following has been suggested, and is agreed to by me, both at great length.

1. This will almost definitely not rise to the height that this model shows. It may betray my ignorance to suggest that the 1,400' figure was extrapolated by taking the square footage of the plot, adding a few variables and working from that point. I say anything between 980' and 1,200'.

2. RW's model, by his own admission, leaves out some key details that will insinuate themselves into our ongoing discussions when they go public. Again, I must profess my interest in the model that shows the "Apple glass box" and what appears to be outer grid-work around the structure. This latter element will be quite interesting to watch unfold.

3. Sr. Viñoly will come through...assuming his services are kept.

Amigo,

It likely will exceed 1,200 feet and Vinoly's missing element will prevent this from being a total yawner, but it will still be quite lame for the location.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

but it will still be quite lame for the location.

Lame or simple? For the most part, the buildings which line Park Avenue in that area are fairly simple in design.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Amigo,

It likely will exceed 1,200 feet and Vinoly's missing element will prevent this from being a total yawner, but it will still be quite lame for the location.

For this location? I wouldn't exactly call this location a bastion of cutting edge high rise architecture. It's the complete opposite.

The Twin Towers which everyone seems to suddenly love were also boring boxes. Why no love for this boring box?! At least it's taller!!

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

It's the complete opposite.

Exactly; with the exception of Helmsley and Waldorf, there are no extravagant pieces of architecture on that stretch which would set any sort of expectation on how this building should look.