NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS

[NYguy]

I wonder if this tower will still have the open air deck at the top for residents.

[MarshallKnight]

Originally Posted by JayPro

...or having to sit through any buttpipe NIMBY claptrap during the meeting.

Or, hopefully, they're taking their turn at the podium to battle opponents and share their enthusiasm for tall skyscrapers in the face of nimbyism.

[supertallchaser]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I wonder if this tower will still have the open air deck at the top for residents.

i wish it could be an observation deck

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MarshallKnight

Or, hopefully, they're taking their turn at the podium to battle opponents and share their enthusiasm for tall skyscrapers in the face of nimbyism.

They'll be stoned out of the place.

Originally Posted by JayPro

@NYGuy;

But wasn't 111's height finalized at 1300' to the top design element? That'd be a 123' diff.

I didn't see that anywhere. The figure I mostly remember is something like 1,361 ft. But even a 100 ft difference isn't really a lot at that height.

I have to say, 1,423 ft is a good height, and what everyone thought 432 Park was going to be. It's more than the 1,200 ft mentioned by the architect. It can claim title of tallest from its rivals (until, almost inevitably something taller comes along).

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by Blaze23

I might be reading too much into it but I'm not sensing a lot of enthusiasm from those guys at the meeting. Hope I'm wrong

When I heard its another flat roof all my enthusiasm went out the window. Height cannot mask mediocre architecture and glass + flat roof usually mean mediocre. Good thing Shop saved the day with their tower.

[hunser]

1,423ft ain't bad but I really hoped for a solid 1500 footer. I guess it could be worse so I guess I should be happy. Building on demand and making $$$ doesn't get a megatall in New York, at least not for now.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

That's promising. How many setbacks?

[JayPro]

I've seen the work that the archtects of record *haven't even started on yet* on their site; and y'all would be flabberghasted what these dudes can do with a simple "box" form.
Just a matter of opinion, tho: I believe the choice to go flat-roofed could be a gesture of deference to Lady ESB's status and prominence.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JayPro

I believe the choice to go flat-roofed could be a gesture of deference to Lady ESB's status and prominence.

I doubt if. At that height, this tower would dominate the ESB, regardless. I think it has more to do with space at the top of the building. And let's not forget Barnett insisting this tower would have no spire or "gimmick" at the top. A distinctive crown would be nice.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

You get some photos?

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by NYguy

They'll be stoned out of the place.

I have to say, 1,423 ft is a good height, and what everyone thought 432 Park was going to be. It's more than the 1,200 ft mentioned by the architect. It can claim title of tallest from its rivals (until, almost inevitably something taller comes along).

I was hoping for 1500+ footer but I will take 1423. Like you said, this will be the tallest building in the city. I like the base of the tower, it has potential to be interesting. Lets get some pictures now.

[babybackribs2314]

I have video; will try and upload.

Very disappointed with this tower; if you made Mumbai's World One more cubic, they would be twins.

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

The massing between the various sections is quite awkward and it's literally like each component was designed with its clients' needs in mind then awkwardly jumbled together; the retail space is fine enough but the hotel sits awkwardly on top, and the residential portion juts out from the side to reach the tower's pinnacle.

All in all it was a boring meeting until the Nordstrom Tower came up, but I'm very disappointed the concern over the cantilever touched on views and shadows and the Arts Building, but not on WHY the cantilever is there to begin with - and several people afterwards complimented me on my comment. Seriously ticked off.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

No youll be pleasantly surprised this is no clone of 432

Originally Posted by scalziand

BTW, I had a terrible dream last night. The design for 225w57 was revealed, and it was just another box like 432park.

So my worst fears weren't realised at least.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

How dare you ask a relevant question. Anyway, we knew the tower itself would be on one side or the other because of the column free spaces Nordstrom wanted. But as you suggested the tower could have been pushed to the other side. From the descriptions, I'm guessing it would look better without any cantilever.



http://mgross.com/gripebox/scuse-me-while-i-kill-the-sky-extells-1550-foot-tower-revealed/

[supertallchaser]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I have video; will try and upload.

Very disappointed with this tower; if you made Mumbai's World One more cubic, they would be twins.

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

The massing between the various sections is quite awkward and it's literally like each component was designed with its clients' needs in mind then awkwardly jumbled together; the retail space is fine enough but the hotel sits awkwardly on top, and the residential portion juts out from the side to reach the tower's pinnacle.

All in all it was a boring meeting until the Nordstrom Tower came up, but I'm very disappointed the concern over the cantilever touched on views and shadows and the Arts Building, but not on WHY the cantilever is there to begin with - and several people afterwards complimented me on my comment. Seriously ticked off.

this tower sounds very awkward and im hearing mixed reactions.is the facade atleast decent?

[babybackribs2314]

Uploading video via DropBox; will post shortly. Don't hold your breath.

[UTEPman]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I have video; will try and upload.

Very disappointed with this tower; if you made Mumbai's World One more cubic, they would be twins.

The cantilever is awkward. I was upset at the meeting because the Committee's leader Howard totally shot me down & demeaned me when I asked a very valid question regarding the cantilever's necessity in the context of 220 Central Park South - which is the only reason there will be a cantilever in the first place, though Gordon Gill gave the excuse that Nordstrom needs column-free spaces (they could easily put the tower on top of 1780 Broadway if that were the case).

The massing between the various sections is quite awkward and it's literally like each component was designed with its clients' needs in mind then awkwardly jumbled together; the retail space is fine enough but the hotel sits awkwardly on top, and the residential portion juts out from the side to reach the tower's pinnacle.

All in all it was a boring meeting until the Nordstrom Tower came up, but I'm very disappointed the concern over the cantilever touched on views and shadows and the Arts Building, but not on WHY the cantilever is there to begin with - and several people afterwards complimented me on my comment. Seriously ticked off.

I wasn't getting the warm 'n' fuzzies with this tower about a month ago. Sucks, but it is what it is....

[McSky]

As soon as I heard that 220 CPS might be taller than 577 feet I thought they would push this tower as far east as possible, to maximize views of the Park. Didn't imagine they would propose a cantilever for the bulk of the tower, if that's the case.

It's hard to believe that they wouldn't add 30 feet to this to make it the tallest roof in North America. But 1423 feet is still quite a behemoth.

[King DenCity]

Such a disappointment
I hope another tower comes along and overtakes the 1500' mark and SOON.