NEW YORK | Tower Fifth | 1,556 FT | 96 FLOORS

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm betting almost everyone with objections are NIMBYs or envious.

For skyscraper/urbanist geeks, a 1,557 ft., starchitect-designed skyscraper by a first-rate developer and ultra-iconic location, all on a tiny site, with crazy urbanity, no parking, and no historic buildings removed, is about as good as it gets.

I'm the opposite of a NIMBY and I don't like it. Which is funny because I really like controversial towers like 432 Park and 56 Leonard, for some reason the top of this one really bothers me. Hopefully there will be further refinement / tweaks. I wish they would try to accentuate the verticality, rather than these awkward offsets.

[jayden]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm betting almost everyone with objections are NIMBYs or envious.

For skyscraper/urbanist geeks, a 1,557 ft., starchitect-designed skyscraper by a first-rate developer and ultra-iconic location, all on a tiny site, with crazy urbanity, no parking, and no historic buildings removed, is about as good as it gets.

Agreed.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by pico44

Sorry folks but this is a done deal. Better get used to it. No way Macklowe is going to pay for a new design when he already spent good money and time breaking this architect’s spirit with endless VE demands and dumbed-down redesigns. This is what we’re getting

Just wait until Brewer gets her claws on it.

With the design, IMO, I'm going to hold judgement until further renderings are provided.

[rgarri4]

Just VE it further to not include the botched upper massing? I'd take a height reduction for that. No further detailed renderings is going to save this. But sure...lets wait for more.

[Zapatan]

How much can Gale shorten this?

I'm not crazy about the design but some more renderings would be helpful. It's cool from an engineering standpoint at least.

[gramsjdg]

Not liking the square windows, I dislike 432 Park for the same reason.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by jayden

Y'all really think it's that bad?

Yeah. It just looks clumsy. The height is great, and as I said, there are some things about it that I don't mind. That top, though. I still say it looks like a Halloween robot costume.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm betting almost everyone with objections are NIMBYs or envious.

For skyscraper/urbanist geeks, a 1,557 ft., starchitect-designed skyscraper by a first-rate developer and ultra-iconic location, all on a tiny site, with crazy urbanity, no parking, and no historic buildings removed, is about as good as it gets.

No, it's not nimbyism. I don't even live in New York. And it's certainly not jealousy either. There are some great supertalls in that rendering, but this one and 432 Park are just awful.

One Vanderbilt is outstanding, something on the level of a modern day Empire State or Chrysler Building. That building will be an icon, without even being the tallest. I also really like the Central Park Tower because of how different it is than anything else, though, I wish they'd bring back the funky spire it had.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Just wait until Brewer gets her claws on it.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

How much can Gale shorten this?

Brewer can't do anything. I'm sure she will torch this proposal (like everything else), but she's just allowed to give her opinion on it, just like the community boards that represent her. It's City Planning, and the City Council who could request changes. Also, Landmarks has a say.

Meanwhile, I don't think it's a horrible design at all. I think that the great height, and the fact that people aren't used to seeing such a tower on the skyline contributes to some negative opinion. I'm not so much concerned about how it tops out at this point, because it will be basically the same height as Central Park Tower.

Not sure of the source of this pic, but it's a screenshot...








Here's the source...

https://www.facebook.com/pg/TomorrowAB/posts/

Tower Fifth - NYC’s tallest tower

The developer Harry Macklowe Real Estate is planning a breathtaking 500 meter supertall skyskraper on Manhattan, New York, called Tower Fifth. It will be one of the tallest buildings in the world.

New York City is undergoing an architectural renaissance with the construction of supertowers with impeccable looks and a sense of grandeur.

We at Tomorrow are happy and proud to collaborate with Gensler and reshaping New York’s skyline by putting the next 21st-century building on the map.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I find that to be baloney, best served on a sandwich. New York City's skyline, as it has been classically defined (even before the ESB) has been dominated by spires - of different shapes and sizes. So if you don't love spires, and prefer the flat roofed variety of skyline, so be it. But you don't love the New York skyline. If this building is built as is, that's fine also. It won't be the last skyline defining skyscraper built in the city.

I don't have a problem with any of the spires or pointy tops of early 20th century skyscrapers in NYC. I have problem mainly with these three recently completed supertalls:

New York Times (2007), whose spire is 28.7% of the building's structural height

Bank of America Tower (2009), whose spire is 21.3% of the building's structural height

One World Trade Center (2014), whose spire is 23.0% of the building's structural height

For comparison, in Chicago the skyscraper with the largest (proportionally speaking) spire is Trump Hotel & Tower, whose spire is 15.7% of the building's structural height. That's already pretty bad, but is still much better than the above three NYC buildings, and all other spire-bearing buildings in Chicago have smaller spires than Trump Hotel & Tower.

Also, I didn't say I am against all future spires in NYC. All I said was that we need to be careful going forward. You probably would agree with me that NYC should try to avoid having another supertall whose spire accounts for 20 - 30% of its structural height.

BTW, if you go to the Diagrams page and look up US (not just NYC) buildings completed before 1950, including destroyed buildings, you will see that many other cities also had lots of buildings with spires or pointy tops. I don't think the NYC skyline is defined by spires and peaks per se. Rather, pre-1950 skylines were typically filled with spires and peaks, but because NYC's skyline has been dominated by old buildings for so many decades, it may appear to be defined by spires and peaks.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Y
No, it's not nimbyism. I don't even live in New York. And it's certainly not jealousy either. There are some great supertalls in that rendering, but this one and 432 Park are just awful.

One Vanderbilt is outstanding, something on the level of a modern day Empire State or Chrysler Building. That building will be an icon, without even being the tallest. I also really like the Central Park Tower because of how different it is than anything else, though, I wish they'd bring back the funky spire it had.

Let's just say you have unusual tastes.

The architecture community far prefers 432 Park over CPT. The average guy on the street just sees both as very tall boxes. One Vanderbilt is a typical corporate KPF design, nice but not extraordinary.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

How much can Gale shorten this?

I'm not crazy about the design but some more renderings would be helpful. It's cool from an engineering standpoint at least.

Hopefully she can help keep it from getting built in any way like these renderings. For once(I can't believe it)I am rooting for the harridan and her claws to win.

This thing is hideous. And no that is not jealousy as some might say-it is just ugly.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Let's just say you have unusual tastes.

The architecture community far prefers 432 Park over CPT. The average guy on the street just sees both as very tall boxes. One Vanderbilt is a typical corporate KPF design, nice but not extraordinary.

Neither 432 Park nor CPT are extraordinary towers. I've not heard any member of the architecture community and few average joes who think they are. Both are inferior to the top residential towers going up right now. I would say One Vanderbilt is a superior tower to both as well, albeit it commercial. Of course, the developer will do what they want on this one, but it's very reasonable to hope for design improvements. It's not Nimbyism or jealousy.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I don't have a problem with any of the spires or pointy tops of early 20th century skyscrapers in NYC. I have problem mainly with these three recently completed supertalls:

New York Times (2007), whose spire is 28.7% of the building's structural height

Bank of America Tower (2009), whose spire is 21.3% of the building's structural height

One World Trade Center (2014), whose spire is 23.0% of the building's structural height

For comparison, in Chicago the skyscraper with the largest (proportionally speaking) spire is Trump Hotel & Tower, whose spire is 15.7% of the building's structural height.

BTW, if you go to the Diagrams page and look up US (not just NYC) buildings completed before 1950, including destroyed buildings, you will see that many other cities also had lots of buildings with spires or pointy tops. I don't think the NYC skyline is defined by spires and peaks per se. Rather, pre-1950 skylines were typically filled with spires and peaks, but because NYC's skyline has been dominated by old buildings for so many decades, it may appear to be defined by spires and peaks.

You're kidding right? No other city had a skyline that even came close to New York's skyline which was defined by it's peaks. It's the classic skyline of tallest skyscrapers until we reached the World Trade Center. New York's skyline has just been defined by pointed buildings. Now we are seeing taller, flatter buildings replace those skyscrapers as the tallest on the skyline (with the Freedom Tower being a little removed from the rest of the pack). That's a big change in what you could say is the world's most famous skyline. And a lot of people (myself included) just don't like that. The difference with me though, is that I'm for the natural evolution of the skyline, and what will be built is what will be built. I prefer the iconic skyline though.




https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comment...november_2018/



https://beautifulny.wordpress.com/pa...oad=blackberry

Originally Posted by toddguy

Hopefully she can help keep it from getting built in any way like these renderings. For once(I can't believe it)I am rooting for the harridan and her claws to win.

You'd be wasting your time, as she doesn't actually have the power to do that.

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Neither 432 Park nor CPT are extraordinary towers. I've not heard any member of the architecture community and few average joes who think they are. Both are inferior to the top residential towers going up right now.

I would agree that neither are on the level of 53w53 or Steinway, or even 9 Dekalb. But I don't gauge my opinion based on what "members of the architecture community" think, even though 432 Park has gotten opinions in its favor.

Again, by no means do I think this is a great design. I don't even think 30 Hudson is a great design. But I also don't think a lot of the towers I see going up in other places that people on this forum rave about are great designs either. They're just skyscrapers. That's why, when you really do get a great design, like 53w53 or 9 DeKalb, you really appreciate it.


Back on design of the top, I would rather the 3 level parapet at the top were closed, and didn't resemble the rest of the building. That would be a visual break. Also, the extended portion to the east appears to be some sort of clear glass deck, sort of like walking out into the air, so that's interesting. The other, larger floors at the top I'm sure are because of the observation deck as well. Wouldn't surprise me if there were some restaurant up there.

[Gantz]

How legit is that rendering? Looks pretty bulky to me.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Neither 432 Park nor CPT are extraordinary towers. I've not heard any member of the architecture community and few average joes who think they are. Both are inferior to the top residential towers going up right now.

While I agree, and the same goes for Tower Fifth (and 1 Vandy, and likely Chase Tower), I don't understand the point.

Re. architecture, like 99.9% of towers won't be the "best," like a 111 W57. The vast majority of towers will be "fine", not spectacular, not horrendous, simply adhering to the zoning envelope with minor tweaks in materials, quality, and style.

We kinda already know what, say, Extell's upcoming 5th Ave. tower looks like before we have any renderings (likely tall, boxy, glassy, high quality but corporate, with large retail base). It won't be as good as 111 W57, but nor will it look like something out of Pyongyang.

[Fvn]

Gensler is the architect? I'd expect a tad bit more from them but again its only a first rendering. So far the best part is the bottom.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Fvn

Gensler is the architect? I'd expect a tad bit more from them but again its only a first rendering. So far the best part is the bottom.

Maybe we should call it the J Lo tower then.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Fvn

Gensler is the architect? I'd expect a tad bit more from them but again its only a first rendering. So far the best part is the bottom.

I believe Viñoly, MdeAS and Gensler are architects.

Gensler is probably doing the interiors, as they're a pretty common office architect. MdeAS does glass tower exteriors. Viñoly will probably be the name architect.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You're kidding right? No other city had a skyline that even came close to New York's skyline which was defined by it's peaks. It's the classic skyline of tallest skyscrapers until we reached the World Trade Center. New York's skyline has just been defined by pointed buildings. Now we are seeing taller, flatter buildings replace those skyscrapers as the tallest on the skyline (with the Freedom Tower being a little removed from the rest of the pack). That's a big change in what you could say is the world's most famous skyline. And a lot of people (myself included) just don't like that. The difference with me though, is that I'm for the natural evolution of the skyline, and what will be built is what will be built. I prefer the iconic skyline though.




https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comment...november_2018/



https://beautifulny.wordpress.com/pa...oad=blackberry








You'd be wasting your time, as she doesn't actually have the power to do that.





I would agree that neither are on the level of 53w53 or Steinway, or even 9 Dekalb. But I don't gauge my opinion based on what "members of the architecture community" think, even though 432 Park has gotten opinions in its favor.

Again, by no means do I think this is a great design. I don't even think 30 Hudson is a great design. But I also don't think a lot of the towers I see going up in other places that people on this forum rave about are great designs either. They're just skyscrapers. That's why, when you really do get a great design, like 53w53 or 9 DeKalb, you really appreciate it.


Back on design of the top, I would rather the 3 level parapet at the top were closed, and didn't resemble the rest of the building. That would be a visual break. Also, the extended portion to the east appears to be some sort of clear glass deck, sort of like walking out into the air, so that's interesting. The other, larger floors at the top I'm sure are because of the observation deck as well. Wouldn't surprise me if there were some restaurant up there.

I hope she starts a social movement towards banning this design, and it takes hold all over America!

And that first pic of old NYC shows that tall straight boxes can end elegantly without a spire. This new building should be held to the same standard. It is not the lower two thirds that bother me and the base is innovative in dealing with the space constraints and showcases the church nicely. It is just that top!-Ugh!!!

*I have always loved the third tallest on the left in that first pic. I have always thought that building is simple yet elegant and a fitting contrast to the ones with the spires.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I believe Viñoly, MdeAS and Gensler are architects.

Gensler is probably doing the interiors, as they're a pretty common office architect. MdeAS does glass tower exteriors. Viñoly will probably be the name architect.

Viñoly, like BIG, does some decent low and mid-rise work, but his high rises are shameful. This looks like a Viñoly.