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

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

That information led any reasonable person to surmise that an iconic design would follow if the developer was committed to an iconic height.

Ah, so it was just boosterism. I do agree with NYguy though.

I'm sure most people on these boards will find an excuse to like it anyway.

[Don098]

Can someone please explain the difference between a massing model and a real proposal and rendering? What is a massing model, and can we expect the real proposal to look dramatically different (i.e. a curved roof or soft edges or different window positions, etc. etc.)

P.S. I'd appreciate an answer from someone who's actually an architect, engineer, or has experience with development and NOT speculation dribble from the usual suspects. Thanks.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Don098

Can someone please explain the difference between a massing model and a real proposal and rendering? What is a massing model, and can we expect the real proposal to look dramatically different (i.e. a curved roof or soft edges or different window positions, etc. etc.)

P.S. I'd appreciate an answer from someone who's actually an architect, engineer, or has experience with development and NOT speculation dribble from the usual suspects. Thanks.

well im not a licensed architect but im studying. a massing model is a mockup of how tall and bulky a structure will be, a rendering is simply a drawing or animated rendition of what something will look like. And a real proposal is in terms of art is the exact rendition of what will be built.

[NYguy]

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.

Well the lesson remains to be learned, but do as you like. Just don't repeat the same mistakes in judgement you've made here.

[Loqy Lion]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well the lesson remains to be learned, but do as you like. Just don't repeat the same mistakes in judgement you've made here.

Absurd. He never said anything he shouldn't have. All the guy did was provide inside information and took a guess as to the design. The design sucks. So what? He guessed wrong. Big effin' deal.

I've seen this act before- at a site called skyscrapercity. They lost a few of their best posters because of it. Just relax, big fella. There's no need to go all magisterial and critical on one of the board's top posters!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Loqy Lion

Absurd. He never said anything he shouldn't have. All the guy did was provide inside information and took a guess as to the design. The design sucks. So what? He guessed wrong. Big effin' deal.

I don't care what goes on at SSC, but I do follow the threads here and try to keep the information as accurate as possible. When someone drums a tower up as being a "great" skyscraper (an understatement here) - sight unseen - then disregards it as being possibly the worst - (again, sight unseen) that tells me the information being posted earlier never should have been. It's enough to say a tower may look great, and to be disappointed when it isnt.

Let that be a lesson to anyone.

Now please let the conversation continue from here on out about what could potentially be the city's tallest residential. If you can't do that, then take it all back to SSC.

[Don098]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

well im not a licensed architect but im studying. a massing model is a mockup of how tall and bulky a structure will be, a rendering is simply a drawing or animated rendition of what something will look like. And a real proposal is in terms of art is the exact rendition of what will be built.

So does that mean that the exterior of this building could actually be completely different aside from it's general cubic dimensions of l*w*h? Are all massing models essentially featureless cubes that demonstrate a building's general footprint, or are they actually closer to the building's real intended appearance?

I'm bringing this up because people are having long, drawn-out and melodramatic emotional responses to something that's not a render. If it's really close to what we're going to get, that's understandable. But if this massing model is merely showing it's general footprint, that to me would be like a mother crying about an ugly baby when looking at it's X-ray...

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Don098

Are all massing models essentially featureless cubes

It’s an estimation of dimensions, not a detail oriented representation of the final product.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Don098

So does that mean that the exterior of this building could actually be completely different aside from it's general cubic dimensions of l*w*h? Are all massing models essentially featureless cubes that demonstrate a building's general footprint, or are they actually closer to the building's real intended appearance?

I'm bringing this up because people are having long, drawn-out and melodramatic emotional responses to something that's not a render. If it's really close to what we're going to get, that's understandable. But if this massing model is merely showing it's general footprint, that to me would be like a mother crying about an ugly baby when looking at it's X-ray...

Yes your spot on. All im seeing in this massing model is a big thin box nothing more nothing less. it entails nothing about the actual design of the facade. Just wait and see,maybe we'll be surprised.

[Roadcruiser1]

Hopefully the building will use an art deco exterior.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Hopefully the building will use an art deco exterior.

Oh god no. That would look so ugly. The massing shown already just doesn't work for that architectural style. Imagine a giant rectangle with an art deco facade. Bleh. Plus, historic styles are almost never done right. Better to just make it in the modernism stlye, so it doesn't look horrendous.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree NYC is deserving of some cutting edge architecture, but it already has that, tons of it. It's also deserving of massive height, by which I mean 400 meters and up... The ESB had it's time in the sun, and while I think it is one of the greatest skyscrapers (if not THE greatest) I think it's time for it to be equaled in height by other NYC buildings if not overshadowed. If NYC can't build anything taller than ESB than there is not going to be near the skyscraper future as we previously thought. Plus 1WTC is taller than ESB anyway so why the hell not?

- Yes the purpose of rebuilding downtown IS to make it better, which it will be but it won't be taller, so why not build a twin tower+ sized building elsewhere in the city AND have all the supertalls at ground zero, and all the other ones elsewhere in the city. The ESB won't disappear it will just have company, something that it's needed every since the twins went down.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well the lesson remains to be learned, but do as you like. Just don't repeat the same mistakes in judgement you've made here.

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I am an extremely successful businessman and the boss to many people. I rarely make mistakes in judgment in real life, let alone on an internet forum. In the future, I'll keep inside information to myself if twenty year old members feel that it creates too much havoc in their lives.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by Dac150

It’s an estimation of dimensions, not a detail oriented representation of the final product.

But very close to it.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

IIt's also deserving of massive height, by which I mean 400 meters and up...

Sounds to me like you qualify the backing of a tall building for the appearance factor rather than legitimate demand. Whatever height this particular project turns out to be will be qualified by demand, not because the developer feels the city ‘deserves’ a tall building.

The concept of building tall is severely misconstrued by many here. You build based on demand.

[Don098]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Yes your spot on. All im seeing in this massing model is a big thin box nothing more nothing less. it entails nothing about the actual design of the facade. Just wait and see,maybe we'll be surprised.

Thanks. In that case, I'm going to ignore this thread until a real rendering is released - not leaked, or faked - but printed in a bonafide press release. If this thread is going to remain in the real world, I think everyone else should do the same and CALM DOWN.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Sounds to me like you qualify the backing of a tall building for the appearance factor rather than legitimate demand. Whatever height this particular project turns out to be will be qualified by demand, not because the developer feels the city ‘deserves’ a tall building.

The concept of building tall is severely misconstrued by many here. You build based on demand.

Never disagreed, that doesn't change the fact that NY could use a 1400 footer. I bet enough rich people would line up for this building if it were built.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Dac150

The concept of building tall is severely misconstrued by many here. You build based on demand.

Yea ok.. tell that to the Mid East and Asia

[Dylan Leblanc]

guys, as an example, I think that massing model could represent a building with a final design something along the lines of this, Marina 101 in Dubai.


pic from - http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2...arina-101.html


though usually massing models don't have facade detail like the one we have seen. most massing models I have seen are simply blank boxes.

[RobertWalpole]

A crown would make an enormous difference, but the roof will be flat.