NEW YORK | 418 11th Ave | FT | FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

They wanted it to fit in with the other forgettable box towers nearby.

LOL. I have to laugh sometimes. The earlier design went from being hated by just about everyone on this forum who would comment on it. Change the design, and what do you know? Can't please everybody, that's for sure.

Anyway, the design is far from an unforgettable box design.

[Busy Bee]

I thought the previous concept was a disturbing abomination in form and grace that otherwise used quality, aesthetically appealing materials and incorporated interesting façade elements but looked like it would fall over in a hurricane. Many other tower foamers on here thought it was the most amazing thing they'd ever seen in their two decades of life in earth LOL.

To each their own. That's why taste is subjective.

I'm not loving this top heavy gut bulge concept we're seeing here, but to fully judge I'd need to see the whole thing. I just instinctively do not like tall buildings that flip the entire good taste, and arguably, natural script of wider lower/thinner upper on it's head. Yes, we are dealing with some site limitations here with apparently not being able to anchor the northwest corner, but I'll go back and reiterate how stupid and shortsighted this makes the city and MTA look for not having the foresight to build into the tunnel ventilation structure a foundation on that corner that a tower could use in a future development.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I thought the previous concept was a disturbing abomination in form and grace that otherwise used quality, aesthetically appealing materials and incorporated interesting façade elements but looked like it would fall over in a hurricane. Many other tower foamers on here thought it was the most amazing thing they'd ever seen in their two decades of life in earth LOL.

To each their own. That's why taste is subjective.

I was perfectly fine with the other design. Most people hated it. Taste is subjective. That's why I say you can't please all the people. Only the discontented will voice their displeasure though. It's only when something is gone others will cry.

We don't know (officially) that this tower was selected, though the likelihood that it was is high. And there will still be further design revisions to what eventually gets built. But the design as is is unlike anything in New York at the moment. As the other design would have been.

[Busy Bee]

Somebody on YIMBY posted a photoshopped "improvement" where the bulge just repeated up the tower:


link

[Doubleu1117]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Somebody on YIMBY posted a photoshopped "improvement" where the bulge just repeated up the tower:


link

I think that's a bit too busy. But this type of design, where the bulges are in alternating directions, and maybe only 3 for the entire tower. Bottom the largest and smaller as it goes up.

[Busy Bee]

It would definitely have a Brancusi endless column sort of appeal. I think there's real potential there actually.

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by NYguy

LOL. I have to laugh sometimes. The earlier design went from being hated by just about everyone on this forum who would comment on it. Change the design, and what do you know? Can't please everybody, that's for sure.

Anyway, the design is far from an unforgettable box design.

The original design was at least liked or not...bold and brash and what a potential supertall nyc tower should always try to be.

It's pretty much x3 425 Park Ave stacked on top of each other. At least do something with the roof. Flat again. Yawn.

It's like the proposed casino tower nearby. That should be the tower 1600+ as it has the currency to stand out further not this thing.

[rgarri4]

From my 3D model.

[ChiND]

I was wondering what the first 600-700 feet might look like. If it looks like how you envision, it will be an amazing tower.



TKDV’s interpretation also looks great.

[rgarri4]

With the substation or whatever it is occupying the west side of the sight I doubt the bottom has a second geometry flip like that. Same reason why the original design had the cantilevers.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

The original design was at least liked or not...bold and brash and what a potential supertall nyc tower should always try to be.

It's pretty much x3 425 Park Ave stacked on top of each other. At least do something with the roof. Flat again. Yawn.

It's like the proposed casino tower nearby. That should be the tower 1600+ as it has the currency to stand out further not this thing.

The roof is flat, but that may be best for the design. We've only seen basically the top half of this tower. But like the other version, it appears to be a top heavy design. When you look at it closely, you can see that it is a very complicated design.

When the programming for the tower changed, it was very obvious this was going to be a different tower. It could have very easily been a simple tower. But they decided to give us a nice, modern designed tower. Most people will be comfortable with it. The NIMBYs have no argument. It's slender design will produce less shadows. It's no home for the billionaires like the supertalls of 57th. It's a tall building, in a neighborhood of tall buildings.

So far, this OMA design is better than their other planned supertall on 57th Street...







Some of their other New York designs....




https://www.dezeen.com/2022/12/08/om...oint-brooklyn/




https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/28/12...new-york-city/

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

With the substation or whatever it is occupying the west side of the sight I doubt the bottom has a second geometry flip like that. Same reason why the original design had the cantilevers.

Thanks for the renderings. Yeah, only a portion of the site can be built on. Hope we get a full reveal, and the issue of the bid is resolved soon.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Thanks for the renderings. Yeah, only a portion of the site can be built on. Hope we get a full reveal, and the issue of the bid is resolved soon.

[QUOTE]Rgarri] With the substation or whatever it is occupying the west side of the sight I doubt the bottom has a second geometry flip like that. Same reason why the original design had the cantilevers.]

I thought that the substation was going to be incorporated into the building.

[Busy Bee]

The ventilation structure facade will likely be incorporated but the tower base cannot extend all the way to the northwest corner of the site or even all the way to 11 Av because of MTA easements and the ventilation structures lack of provision for a tower anchoring foundation. A stupendously shortsighted oversight as I've mentioned before.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The ventilation structure facade will likely be incorporated but the tower base cannot extend all the way to the northwest corner of the site or even all the way to 11 Av because of MTA easements and the ventilation structures lack of provision for a tower anchoring foundation. A stupendously shortsighted oversight as I've mentioned before.

Thanks. I didn’t realize that. The buildable space for the site is pretty narrow then.

[TKD]

I'm certain everyone is forgetting that all the easements and the ventilation structure can be built ontop of, just because they are there doesnt make it an impossible task, just like 55 Hudson Yards was built on top of and absorbed the larger of the 2 vent structures. The vent structure and mta/Amtrak easements being there does not preclude the building from taking over the whole site so thered be no reason to think that the building cant grow larger in the portion seen outside of the render, that is why I added another twist to my render.



Developers like to use all the available space they can, theres no reason Peebles or anyone else would allow their tower to take up such a small footprint as the one created by the lower volume in the official render which is approximately 195' x 85' when the entire lot is 197.5' x ~265'.

If it does end up being just a small footprint then it just ends up being a small footprint but dont think it is without seeing the final design of the base just because you believe the building cant be larger at it's base/podium.

[Busy Bee]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the difference with 55HY is that the vent structure was essentially cantilevered over with a big load transfer floor. Site K, with the required inclusion of avoiding the Empire Connection/West Side Line tunnel will not be able to anchor the tower close enough to the ventilation structure to have the ability structurally to cantilever over and incorporate it like was done with 55HY. Thus why the near entirety of the northwest corner won't be able to brought into the fold. Now whether buried deep in the docs for the MTA vent building plan is some way to provide a foundation for a tower even it if requires significantly reworking the vent plant I do not know but I would suspect that if it was possible/feasible the developers would be proposing it for no other reason than to take full advantage of the potential of the site.

[TKD]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Correct me if I'm wrong but the difference with 55HY is that the vent structure was essentially cantilevered over with a big load transfer floor. Site K, with the required inclusion of avoiding the Empire Connection/West Side Line tunnel will not be able to anchor the tower close enough to the ventilation structure to have the ability structurally to cantilever over and incorporate it like was done with 55HY. Thus why the near entirety of the northwest corner won't be able to brought into the fold. Now whether buried deep in the docs for the MTA vent building plan is some way to provide a foundation for a tower even it if requires significantly reworking the vent plant I do not know but I would suspect that if it was possible/feasible the developers would be proposing it for no other reason than to take full advantage of the potential of the site.

That is correct, the sort of boxed off portion is the vent structure when 55 Hudson Yards was under construction.


I dont think we are in disagreement that the tower will not be built over the vent structure as it was at 55 Hudson Yards, its clear the tower mass will be located on the eastern end of the site, I was more so speaking to the ability of a podium to extend over the whole (more or less) site which would not require such extensive foundations. Portions of the building not in the main footprint of the tower (like my weird second turn 'podium' in my render) can still be built up in the surrounding area of the lot even if only a small portion of the podium is cantilevered over the vent structure and not necessarily all of it.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by TKD

I'm certain everyone is forgetting that all the easements and the ventilation structure can be built ontop of, just because they are there doesnt make it an impossible task, just like 55 Hudson Yards was built on top of and absorbed the larger of the 2 vent structures. The vent structure and mta/Amtrak easements being there does not preclude the building from taking over the whole site so thered be no reason to think that the building cant grow larger in the portion seen outside of the render, that is why I added another twist to my render.



Developers like to use all the available space they can, theres no reason Peebles or anyone else would allow their tower to take up such a small footprint as the one created by the lower volume in the official render which is approximately 195' x 85' when the entire lot is 197.5' x ~265'.

Not forgotten. The area in green is to remain clear, you can see here it was open in the previous version, with the ventilation structure covered to match the rest of the tower.. A lot of it was covered in the Q&A and some of the earlier documents. It's a shame we never got to see any of the other proposals.

[NYguy]

On the agenda for tomorrow's meeting: Next Years Budget. No mention of Site K and awarding a winning bidder.