NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS - Page 29

NYguy · #**561** Posted **Mar 1, 2014, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

I think he/she meant that the 3 north-south subway lines may get too crowded. It's fair enough. That problem may have been solved if there were a second avenue subway but it might not happen soon enough.

It's New York, we can handle crowded subway lines. It's not as if you're going to notice a difference. Also, a lot of commuters will be coming in by way of the new LIRR station at Grand Central, which is actually the base of this tower from street level.

NYguy · #**562** Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 11:29 AM**

http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/201...ersen-Fox.html

[b]Building for the Future
An Interview with A. Eugene Kohn,Chairman, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF)

Quote:

.....Do corporate clients need to consider how the building will affect the daily lives of those in it?

Yes. If the building is well-designed and executed, their staff will be more inspired and efficient. They will produce quality work, and even work longer hours voluntarily because they will enjoy
being at work. It’s about people working as a team, putting in the time requested, doing their jobs, doing them well, and creating better results. The environment we create affects how
the users will do their work and how they will enjoy it.

New York developers understand what they’re trying to achieve and they’re very good at it.

Today’s developers are more concerned about what the result is, what the building looks like, and its quality (as opposed to before, when the bottom line was the overwhelming priority),
while they are still concerned with the financial return. The developers now want to create the “wow” factor and want something they’re proud of as well.

Does it surprise you when you see the development and growth in New York, in particular?

Yes, more so for residential than for office buildings. Residential has changed. When I came to New York in the ’60s, I would not pursue residential projects – they were formulaic and
no one seemed to care about proportions, elegance, exterior materials or details. Developers now realize that it can be profitable to do really well-designed, sometimes iconic, residential projects.
There is no other place in the world where you can get these extremely high residential prices, aside from London.

King DenCity · #**563** Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 1:58 PM**

I'm starting to like this design.

Busy Bee · #**564** Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 2:29 PM**

The top still looks smashed. Add another 300 feet with a more graceful progression of setbacks at the top past the spire height and it would really soar.

Crawford · #**565** Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The top still looks smashed. Add another 300 feet with a more graceful progression of setbacks at the top past the spire height and it would really soar.

Agreed. I am not a huge fan of the current design, and I think it needs to be more soaring/less squat, at least from a bulk perspective.

NYguy · #**566** Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 5:55 PM**

I am confident that KPF will eventually give us a worthy landmark for that location. The top of the building will be public space, and will be the defining mark of the tower. We'll see what de Blasio brings to the table.

Onn · #**567** Posted **Mar 17, 2014, 6:07 PM**

I liked the design since the start and still like it...could be taller yes, but it's not bad for that location.

NYguy · #**568** Posted **Mar 18, 2014, 6:48 AM**

KPF can do so much better, and we already have the BofA tower, which is basically down the street. It's the top of the tower that needs the work. It's in Chrysler Building air space, so we need to get something that won't be just a copy of another New York tower. Something with a spire for sure, but much better than what is presented here. And that space should be more inviting.

This will be the signature tower of the midtown east rezoning, our best chance to get something great on this part of the skyline.

Submariner · #**569** Posted **Mar 18, 2014, 4:37 PM**

I actually like this design a good bit - especially that (in these renderings at least) it's a bit more slender than past renderings (or the diagram drawing).

NYguy · #**570** Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 12:35 PM**

I eagerly await de Blasio's take on the rezoning. By the time that comes around, KPF should have a more realized plan of what is intended to be built. Manhattan is turning into the land of the supertalls. Imagine the excitement had this been the only supertall proposal of the moment. I bet more would be demanding better.

De Minimis NY · #**571** Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 5:14 PM**

Yea, I have to agree with NYGuy on this one. If this had been proposed for a different location, say 8th Avenue somewhere near port authority and the NYTimes tower, I would be ecstatic, but this is park avenue right next to Grand Central. The proposal is certainly an improvement over what's currently there, and so we should be generally happy about it, but given the prominence of this location we should really be holding it to the highest possible standard.

A better way of making this point is to say, does anyone really think this is in the top ten of designs proposed or under construction in the city right now? Because this isn't just a top-ten location, it's the number one location undergoing redevelopment at the moment.

King DenCity · #**572** Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 6:39 PM**

Yes, the center of transportation and buisness in NYC deserves a great design.

TheOldMan · #**573** Posted **Mar 19, 2014, 11:43 PM**

Looks like a modernized, graduated and much-taller version of the Transamerica tower in San Fran. I like it but i also agree with some others that the top needs a little work.

McSky · #**574** Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 3:56 AM**

supertallchaser · #**575** Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 2:10 PM**

honestly it just needs to be taller for a trophy look to midtown if not there would kinda be no point in building tall

Perklol · #**576** Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by supertallchaser

honestly it just needs to be taller for a trophy look to midtown if not there would kinda be no point in building tall

True but this is a narrow site. Maybe 1200' to roof could be possible with reasonable floorplates for those 4-6 law firms.

Busy Bee · #**577** Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 2:22 PM**

I've never seen a tower want to be 1500' worse than this.

supertallchaser · #**578** Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

True but this is a narrow site. Maybe 1200' to roof could be possible with reasonable floorplates for those 4-6 law firms.

even if thats the case i still think maybe 1,400 ft roof with a 200ft spire would really bring midtown to a nice peak

NYguy · #**579** Posted **Mar 20, 2014, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by supertallchaser

honestly it just needs to be taller for a trophy look to midtown if not there would kinda be no point in building tall

There's always a point to building tall. Even at 1,400 ft, it would be taller than anything in the area (we're talking Grand Central district) and make its own mark on the skyline, which is really something that SL Green wanted, besides building the new office space of course. The public space at the top would also be welcome, offering new perspectives on the skyline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I've never seen a tower want to be 1500' worse than this.

The spire/crown is stunted in that version. I'm sure it will bloom into a more beautiful tower.

Crawford · #**580** Posted **Mar 21, 2014, 4:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I've never seen a tower want to be 1500' worse than this.

I was thinking the same thing. The whole building is so bulky and needs more on top. It feels like it's missing a real spire.