NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 23

Zapatan · #**441** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 5:56 AM**

sorry if this was already answered but whats to keep anyone from chopping the height down?

either way this is all great news!

NYguy · #**442** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 6:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

sorry if this was already answered but whats to keep anyone from chopping the height down?

either way this is all great news!

If you mean the city (planning), this tower will be built as-of-right, meaning it fits into what is already zoned (allowed) for the site. That includes everything from street level up, not just the height..

Zapatan · #**443** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 6:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

If you mean the city (planning), this tower will be built as-of-right, meaning it fits into what is already zoned (allowed) for the site. That includes everything from street level up, not just the height..

well that's awesome news for sure...

If the massing model and air rights are up beyond 1400 feet I guess there is always the possibility of it being that tall. I am needless to say, extremely excited for this development, it almost makes up for the bochery at the WTC site

Illithid Dude · #**444** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:33 AM**

Curbed New York is reporting that the building will be 1420 feet high, which is awesome. Moreover, they have a fun render of how the building will look in the skyline with Torre Verre and W 57th.

Loqy Lion · #**445** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 11:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

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

Horrendous example.

RobertWalpole · #**446** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 11:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Curbed New York is reporting that the building will be 1420 feet high, which is awesome. Moreover, they have a fun render of how the building will look in the skyline with Torre Verre and W 57th.

It won't be 1420 feet. It's tentatively planned to be nearly 1400 feet.

Don098 · #**447** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

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

So how exactly do you know this if it's just a massing model and you haven't seen a single rendering yet, hmm?

CoolCzech · #**448** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 2:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Good God, that's one of the tackiest things I've ever seen, right up there with that giant stack of Chinese Takeout cartons, Taipei 101. It looks like a refugee from Jurassic Park. Does the crown spread open when it spits poison in your eye?

I think if we get an elegant 1,400 foot International Style "box" well executed, we'll be doing pretty good compared to THIS shit.

401PAS · #**449** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 6:09 PM**

Sorry still not liking it:

tv002 by curbed, on Flickr

tv003b by curbed, on Flickr

tv004 by curbed, on Flickr

If you are going that tall, need something a little more visually interesting. This will be quite a landmark building in the skyline and would warrant something more ambitious. And for the "well the twin towers were just tall box buildings", I say, the fact that there were two, that were off-set from each other made ALL the difference. You didn't just see one large baseball bat jetting up in the air, you saw them as a pair of spires reaching for the sky and depending on where you were at, the view of the towers changed. This will always just look like a big stick.

RobertWalpole · #**450** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 6:20 PM**

As noted, this "rendering" misses a critical element that the design incorporates. The design is not magnificent like Torre Verre, but it's not as disappointing as this depiction suggests. I'm curious if anyone can figure out the missing element before CIM releases the renderings.

Loqy Lion · #**451** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

As noted, this "rendering" misses a critical element that the design incorporates. The design is not magnificent like Torre Verre, but it's not as disappointing as this box. I'm curious if anyone can figure this out before CIM releases the renderings.

Something to do with water?

401PAS · #**452** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

As noted, this "rendering" misses a critical element that the design incorporates. The design is not magnificent like Torre Verre, but it's not as disappointing as this depiction suggests. I'm curious if anyone can figure out the missing element before CIM releases the renderings.

Fair enough. Then I'll reserve my opinion until this mysterious crucial element is released to the masses.

brian.odonnell20 · #**453** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:17 PM**

rw, would this missing element have to do with the facade?

RobertWalpole · #**454** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:32 PM**

It does not have to do with the facade per se.

Loqy Lion · #**455** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

It does not have to do with the facade per se.

Waterfall(s).

401PAS · #**456** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:43 PM**

Would hate to see a Beekman copy-cat, but would be totally converted on this if there were at least one curve, twist or cork-screw in the facade or building shape.

RobertWalpole · #**457** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:47 PM**

We should be so lucky to have a Beekman copycat here.

JayPro · #**458** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Good God, that's one of the tackiest things I've ever seen, right up there with that giant stack of Chinese Takeout cartons, Taipei 101. It looks like a refugee from Jurassic Park. Does the crown spread open when it spits poison in your eye?

I think if we get an elegant 1,400 foot International Style "box" well executed, we'll be doing pretty good compared to THIS shit.

To be honest, something of that massing and height without the top would be quite nice. I like the cliff-like extensions (technical term pls?) along the sides.

JayPro · #**459** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

It does not have to do with the facade per se.

Okay, I'll play along....

It must be how they deal with exterior truss-work to help give a structure as slender as it's proposed more support. It has to be something like that, coz I'm thinking about the glass cube rendering and the base of the model behind it.

Zapatan · #**460** Posted **Aug 24, 2011, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 401PAS

If you are going that tall, need something a little more visually interesting. This will be quite a landmark building in the skyline and would warrant something more ambitious. And for the "well the twin towers were just tall box buildings", I say, the fact that there were two, that were off-set from each other made ALL the difference. You didn't just see one large baseball bat jetting up in the air, you saw them as a pair of spires reaching for the sky and depending on where you were at, the view of the towers changed. This will always just look like a big stick.

Visually interesting is always nice, but to me, being tall is what makes it visually interesting in the first place, like the sears tower, original WTC, Aon Center, JHC, Chase Tower, Trump World Tower, Hong Kong IFC, 4WTC etc. etc. They're all boxes, what's wrong with them? (PS. I think even one twin tower would still look cool built elsewhere, they were very powerful buildings)

Like I said, NY has PLENTY of interesting architecture, I will take a moderately well desinged 1400 foot tower over a gorgeous 800 foot tower any day simply because NY already has/will have plenty of the latter.