NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS - Page 387

Dylan Dude · #**7721** Posted **Jan 13, 2021, 10:48 AM**

I don't understand all the hate on this building lol definitely the best super tall in billionaires row in my opinion haha steinway is too skinny and 432 park is just boring, CPT actually has more than 5 sides like 432 park. Plus its shiny glass. But whatever, its good that not everyone thinks exactly the same lol

pj3000 · #**7722** Posted **Jan 13, 2021, 4:45 PM**

^ it's just that when you see the designs of supertalls going up all over the world (including in NYC) over the past 10 years or so, and then you see the design of this one, well...

Zapatan · #**7723** Posted **Jan 13, 2021, 6:40 PM**

The only thing that's really special is the cantilever, which is kind of odd looking and not even visible on the skyline. It is quite a feat of engineering though.

The building overall isn't terrible, but some of the designs overseas and in the US blow it out of the water. Even 70's supertalls like Sears or the original WTC are more interesting to me, let alone the ultra futuristic ones of today.

Breaking the height barrier needed to happen though, as the US is major a superpower. I guess you can't have it all, at least not yet. Hopefully we get a taller and more interesting looking building in the near future.

NYguy · #**7724** Posted **Jan 14, 2021, 2:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Dude

I don't understand all the hate on this building lol definitely the best super tall in billionaires row in my opinion haha steinway is too skinny and 432 park is just boring, CPT actually has more than 5 sides like 432 park. Plus its shiny glass. But whatever, its good that not everyone thinks exactly the same lol

Shiny glass doesn't really make a building special. There's plenty of that to go around. I do think the facade is nice. But after a certain height, and prominence on the skyline, you just have to do better.
This would have been a fine 700 footer. At 1,550 ft, the banality is too much. What makes it worse is that it's on the New York skyline, with it's long history of iconic buildings. This building almost doesn't want to be seen.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...?adppopup=true

pj3000 · #**7725** Posted **Jan 14, 2021, 3:20 AM**

^ "almost doesn't want to be seen" is a good way to put it.

In those photos above, my eye goes to it because it's the tallest, but quickly finds 10 other buildings in the frame which make much more of a statement.

Amanita · #**7726** Posted **Jan 14, 2021, 7:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Shiny glass doesn't really make a building special. There's plenty of that to go around. I do think the facade is nice. But after a certain height, and prominence on the skyline, you just have to do better.
This would have been a fine 700 footer. At 1,550 ft, the banality is too much. What makes it worse is that it's on the New York skyline, with it's long history of iconic buildings. This building almost doesn't want to be seen.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...?adppopup=true

This skyscraper really should have had its spire. I noticed something else though- looks like there's some scaffolding on the crown of 787 7th Avenue, on the north side. I wonder what's up with that?

NYguy · #**7727** Posted **Jan 16, 2021, 1:39 AM**

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...?adppopup=true

NYguy · #**7728** Posted **Jan 16, 2021, 3:43 PM**

johnbacaring

NYguy · #**7729** Posted **Jan 18, 2021, 2:43 AM**

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJlcVoRskZH/

NYguy · #**7730** Posted **Jan 22, 2021, 3:16 AM**

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...?adppopup=true

NYguy · #**7731** Posted **Jan 25, 2021, 11:32 PM**

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...?adppopup=true

photoLith · #**7732** Posted **Jan 26, 2021, 6:35 PM**

I know its said all the time on here but man, it sure needed an antenna.

NYguy · #**7733** Posted **Jan 26, 2021, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

I know its said all the time on here but man, it sure needed an antenna.

I was looking at this building yesterday, it’s very visible from Times Square. It should have been a distinctive landmark, but it’s so unbelievably plain for such a tall building. But I’m sure Barnett will make his money.

citybooster · #**7734** Posted **Jan 27, 2021, 2:32 AM**

I have to add my agreement to the feeling that as impressive in height Central Park Tower is, it sure lacks distinctiveness. It needed I think even more importantly rather than a spire a classic, distinctive crown. I hate relative flat tops especially for buildings this prominent. Barnett won't lose any money over this, but would have been nice to have an iconic presence. Well, it's most certainly tall, and not bad looking. I wished it could be just a bit more.

eXodius · #**7735** Posted **Jan 27, 2021, 3:08 AM**

I feel where this building will excel best at is at night when it'll be lit up by all manner of LEDs. While I'd love for it to have an awe-inspiring presence on the skyline, few note the ornate details on many art deco buildings at night unless their crown is lit up similar to ESB.

This one will be more recognizable at night than 432 Park for sure. Could it have been better? Of course! When it lost the spire, it lost its place in my mind as a great addition and more of a placeholder for completing the 2030+ skyline! With 111 W 57th also lit at night, this part of NY is going to shine fairly bright!

JMKeynes · #**7736** Posted **Jan 27, 2021, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I was looking at this building yesterday, it’s very visible from Times Square. It should have been a distinctive landmark, but it’s so unbelievably plain for such a tall building. But I’m sure Barnett will make his money.

Extell will make a ton.

Gary assembled this land long ago.