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

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by NYC = The King

I LOVE city v. city!

You won't see New Yorkers bemoaning a city v. city discussion!

CAPITAL of the world!

Also don't usually see NYers this outwardly arrogant and obnoxious to be frank.

Back to the building, I think what makes Aon work, least for me, is the facades focus on verticality. It pulls the eye upward in a single uninterrupted motion. This facade seems to be too busy for my taste, but the renders have been pretty low quality, and the quality of materials should be unmatched so it could be quite nice.

In that architectural diagram NYGuy posted, looks like we could get some angular setbacks ala Verre, least on the lower portion of the tower.

Hopefully we get some better renders soon, but I'd like some sort of singular aspect of this tower which made it unique outside of it's height. Like a twist so the upper third or so faces central park which is a few blocks north and a fee blocks west, or a crown of some sort. Oh well, 1300+ footer in this economy is pretty impressive.

[Yo Na]

I dont want to jump to any conclusion without seeing a more detailed render of the proposed tower. I think when the structure and shape of the design are simple the materials and details are what will define the building and give it its status.

That being said, I am very curious as to how this tower can be so tall yet so thin. It looks like it can topple over with some decent winds. Im sure they designed the structure to be sucure and stable it just looks like due to its dimensions it will sway and possibly tip over.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by Yo Na

I don't want to jump to any conclusion without seeing a more detailed render of the proposed tower. I think when the structure and shape of the design are simple the materials and details are what will define the building and give it its status.

That being said, I am very curious as to how this tower can be so tall yet so thin. It looks like it can topple over with some decent winds. I'm sure they designed the structure to be secure and stable it just looks like due to its dimensions it will sway and possibly tip over.

From what I learned by taking architecture and engineering classes they probably have something up there to counteract the winds. I would expect something that would be extremely similar to what the Twin Towers had.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Remember guys, this thread is for discussion of the 432 Park Ave. Let's be careful to not stray off-topic.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Remember guys, this thread is for discussion of the 432 Park Ave. Let's be careful to not stray off-topic.

We aren't though. We are talking about the building's design and it's relations to other buildings.

[JayPro]

YEs; but design and context are two things that can veer a topic in unwanted directions before you know it. I can't tell you how many times *before* I officially registered here I witnessed otherwise completely civil threads dedicated to a specific theme wax combative in a city v. city or skyscraper v. skyscraper flamefest.

It's hard to keep within the lines as long as deep-seated emotion shapes our dialogue.

@Crawford: Thanks for confirming my suspicions from my previous post. I had a feeling it was discussed before.
And to the point of this thread, that's exactly what the current renders of this supertall are supposed to evoke, as much as I too wish to see more closeups.
Also, STR comes to the rescue once again (at least mine LOL) in explaining how design, demand and simple common sense approaches go hand in hand in many cases.

Simply put, the design of this tower is quite deliberate, both from the standpoints of aesthetics and tenant need. Mr. Viñoly must have been made aware of what said demand was, and he designed around those particular constraints.

[gramsjdg]

Actually, I think that horizontal lines only would be best on this tower. Vertical lines like on Aon might make this one look too skinny. What would be really cool is horizontal cantilevers between each floor, Frank Lloyd Wright style. That would also widen the building a little.

[RobertWalpole]

When the precise shape of this tower was described to me with specificity months before the renderings were released, I reported the shape here and expressed my displeasure. I expected a 400m+ Torre Verre-calibre building.

We're clearly not getting that, but this tower is not horrible as some disingenuously suggest. Aesthetics are obviously subjective. However, as noted, it's impossible to state plausibly that this will ruin NY's skyline while, Aon, does not ruin Chicago's, particularly when the latter is shorter, fatter and lacks the unique, floating towers scheme. As far as the facade goes, the cubes on this tower's structural facade, which will presumably be executed with very high-end materials, should make this interesting. That remains to be seen, but, as noted, a tower with $50m+ apartments and a five-star hotel should have very lavish materials.

In sum, I still would have preferred a design as striking as Torre Verre or even One 57, which this is not. However, this is not a disaster that ruins NY, any moreso than Aon ruins Chicago, Tower 42 ruins London or Tour Montparnasse destroys Paris. NY is the only city in a non-developing nation that is constructing scores of 300m+ towers, and it's clearly building the very best towers in the US at the moment.

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ The architect has obviously designed a convention center better than this tower. He clearly knew what he was doing, but just got lazy. The thing that makes the Aon so great is the steel tridents (as Minoru liked to call them). The extend out ward much more than the Twins did. Plus they are white, a much more pleasing color to the eye. So when you look at the building head on, it looks like the building has a sheer wall of white steel on the side. This building however is the worst building being built in the U.S today. The buildings you described were those respective city's first major highrise buildings, while we've seen a million buildings like 432 built in NYC and done ALOT better.

[599GTO]

Guys just shut up and be happy you're getting a freaking 1,350ft tower!!! It's essentially a thinner prettier WTC but in Midtown! Good God, only in NYC would there be mass hysteria on this forum about a "bland" 1,350ft tall tower!!! Any skyscraper fan LA or Atlanta or SF or Miami or any other city would faint at the prospect of any building at that height being built in their city.

I looked at the birds eye view of that area and it is dominated by conservative boxes. What did you guys expect? Yes, a spire would have been ideal but isn't Park Avenue very conservative anyway? The type of person who would want to live on Park Avenue would not be a fan of some cray Asian looking skyscraper. This isn't 42nd street. It's like some crazy modernist home being built in London's Kensington Palace Gardens.

The skin will obviously be stunning given the price levels of the homes in this building.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Guys just shut up and be happy you're getting a freaking 1,350ft tower!!! It's essentially a thinner prettier WTC but in Midtown! Good God, only in NYC would there be mass hysteria on this forum about a "bland" 1,350ft tall tower!!! Any skyscraper fan LA or Atlanta or SF or Miami or any other city would faint at the prospect of any building at that height being built in their city.

I looked at the birds eye view of that area and it is dominated by conservative boxes. What did you guys expect? Yes, a spire would have been ideal but isn't Park Avenue very conservative anyway? The type of person who would want to live on Park Avenue would not be a fan of some cray Asian looking skyscraper. This isn't 42nd street. It's like some crazy modernist home being built in London's Kensington Palace Gardens.

The skin will obviously be stunning given the price levels of the homes in this building.

Unlike LA, Atlanta, Miami, etc, NYC has the richest architectural history, most significantly, majestic, awe inspiring skyscrapers. NYC also has the most recognizable skyline, probably in the world. When something so large and of so little architectural significance or visual appeal is being added to the NYC skyline, it deserves all the criticism coming its way.

[NYC4Life]

To have a 1,300+ foot tall tower anywhere in NYC is a rarity in its own, be happy even if the design isn't the greatest.

[meh_cd]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

When the precise shape of this tower was described to me with specificity months before the renderings were released, I reported the shape here and expressed my displeasure. I expected a 400m+ Torre Verre-calibre building.

We're clearly not getting that, but this tower is not horrible as some disingenuously suggest. Aesthetics are obviously subjective. However, as noted, it's impossible to state plausibly that this will ruin NY's skyline while, Aon, does not ruin Chicago's, particularly when the latter is shorter, fatter and lacks the unique, floating towers scheme. As far as the facade goes, the cubes on this tower's structural facade, which will presumably be executed with very high-end materials, should make this interesting. That remains to be seen, but, as noted, a tower with $50m+ apartments and a five-star hotel should have very lavish materials.

In sum, I still would have preferred a design as striking as Torre Verre or even One 57, which this is not. However, this is not a disaster that ruins NY, any moreso than Aon ruins Chicago, Tower 42 ruins London or Tour Montparnasse destroys Paris. NY is the only city in a non-developing nation that is constructing scores of 300m+ towers, and it's clearly building the very best towers in the US at the moment.

Some people don't think it is going to ruin the skyline. They just think it's a boring tower. Sorry if you consider that "disingenuous." It's a simple opinion.

Your logic regarding the materials may seem sound at first, but if they can charge high prices for some foreigner's pied-à-terre because of the building's location and height, what makes you think there isn't a chance it will be value engineered like Gehry? I'll believe the hype when I see it in person.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Some people don't think it is going to ruin the skyline. They just think it's a boring tower. Sorry if you consider that "disingenuous." It's a simple opinion.

Your logic regarding the materials may seem sound at first, but if they can charge high prices for some foreigner's pied-à-terre because of the building's location and height, what makes you think there isn't a chance it will be value engineered like Gehry? I'll believe the hype when I see it in person.

If you think that 8 Spruce has been value-engineered, then you clearly have not seen it in person. It's probably the best tower built in the US in a very long time.

Anyway, while 8 Spruce is magnificent, comparing it to 432 Park is unsound. A building with rental units is totally different than a tower with $50m+ condos.

[JSsocal]

^^^Haha but that is precisely it, it was value engineered, you do remember seeing model shots of the building with the south face having those distinct rifts as well right? The point is it is still a great building because it is great architecture. With the Drake site, there is little to cheapen, the structure is straight forward and easy to build. (granted it has engineering difficulties because of the footprint size). But there are no difficult pieces of steel or concrete to manufacture, and every window going up the tower appears to essentially be the same. This building is a very cheap option for a very prominent sight that deserves much more then this.

[NYC = The King]

Originally Posted by NYC4Life

To have a 1,300+ foot tall tower anywhere in NYC is a rarity in its own, be happy even if the design isn't the greatest.

That's about to change.

One World Trade Center
Two World Trade Center
Empire State Building (I count the spire/antennas)
432 Park Avenue
225 West 57th Street
Hudson Yards Tower II

[THE BIG APPLE]

Originally Posted by NYC4Life

To have a 1,300+ foot tall tower anywhere in NYC is a rarity in its own, be happy even if the design isn't the greatest.

That's like telling someone to be happy that their mom is a prostitute, she may not be the number 1 in the city, but she's still one.

[uaarkson]

That was the worst analogy I've ever heard.

[THE BIG APPLE]

I wasn't trying to give a good analogy. I just want to clarify, that there are many people who can give two shits about this building.

How's this analogy: Just cause you have the biggest ****, doesn't mean a girl wants to sleep with you.

[NYguy]

Order children, or you will be sent to your rooms.