NEW YORK | 418 11th Ave | FT | FLOORS - Page 10

Raysiri · #**181** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 11:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drcastro

In case you weren’t already familiar with this

https://youtu.be/le1QF3uoQNg

I heard that song from this video about what if we had another Freedom Tower: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFQHoKTVmWQ

NYguy · #**182** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 3:22 PM**

Audio from yesterday’s meeting. They mention the 6 bids about 7 minutes in.

• Video Link

mrnyc · #**183** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 4:45 PM**

since it opened, the 33/34 site at the top of the highline has always been very intriguing.

i am glad to hear they have an rfp out and multiple active ideas for developing it.

hopefully they all end up shown to the public.

BK1985 · #**184** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc

since it opened, the 33/34 site at the top of the highline has always been very intriguing.

i am glad to hear they have an rfp out and multiple active ideas for developing it.

hopefully they all end up shown to the public.

Since that lot RFP requires open space in the plan what are the chances they just combine the two buildings into one tower and leave the rest as park/plaza

NYguy · #**185** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 5:52 PM**

^ They’re not gonna combine into a single tower. The residential has a sizeable affordable component. There will be at a minimum 2 towers on that site, likely 3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc

since it opened, the 33/34 site at the top of the highline has always been very intriguing.

i am glad to hear they have an rfp out and multiple active ideas for developing it.

hopefully they all end up shown to the public.

I’m not sure if you’re confusing the two sites. The rfp is for this particular site, the rfp for the 33/34 site has yet to be issued.

BK1985 · #**186** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ They’re not gonna combine into a single tower. The residential has a sizeable affordable component. There will be at a minimum 2 towers on that site, likely 3.

I know it’s wishful thinking but a guy can hope.

jbermingham123 · #**187** Posted **Oct 21, 2021, 11:58 PM**

When this one (or whatever the design ends up being) gets a diagram, it will edge One57 out of the top 25 tallest in NYC (including proposed and U/C). That, to me, is astounding

NYguy · #**188** Posted **Oct 22, 2021, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

When this one (or whatever the design ends up being) gets a diagram, it will edge One57 out of the top 25 tallest in NYC (including proposed and U/C). That, to me, is astounding

Yes, it is.

Raysiri · #**189** Posted **Oct 22, 2021, 11:46 AM**

Oh wow, I didn’t know that.

Busy Bee · #**190** Posted **Oct 22, 2021, 3:11 PM**

The New York Lion · #**191** Posted **Oct 24, 2021, 11:49 PM**

Did my first NYC skyscraper YouTube video. It is my absolute passion.

Please tell me how I need to improve. I can’t get a photo loaded onto the side of the video for some reason, but it’s at the beginning.

Subscribe if you like NYC, sports, or middle of the road politics.

Thanks. Go Big NYC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrpCxbJiQBE

NYguy · #**192** Posted **Oct 25, 2021, 4:35 PM**

^ Nice. We need more skyscraper enthusiasm circulating. There’s more than enough negative NIMBYism going around.

NYguy · #**193** Posted **Oct 29, 2021, 9:00 PM**

Nothing new, just a look at these renderings….

MercurySky · #**194** Posted **Oct 31, 2021, 6:37 PM**

This building looks absolutely terrible.

MAC123 · #**195** Posted **Oct 31, 2021, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MercurySky

This building looks absolutely terrible.

What about it? The Shape? The Materials? How it looks in the general area?
I disagree with your sentiment but I'd genuinely (with no sarcasm or malicious intent ) like to know why you don't like it.

Drcastro · #**196** Posted **Oct 31, 2021, 11:40 PM**

I don’t like the excessive cantilevering, but I like everything else about it. I guess I’m conflicted.

gramsjdg · #**197** Posted **Nov 1, 2021, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MercurySky

This building looks absolutely terrible.

Agree 100%.

Nothing particularly problematic with the details, unoriginal as they are.

The big problem is the cantilevers and resultant massing, which not only looks hideous, but serves to actually de-accentuate the height. Not something you want to do for the city's tallest.

Looks like one of those "let's do it because we have the technology" buildings; aesthetics be damned. "let's design an upside down skyscraper, wouldn't that be novel."

All I can say is that I am glad there are other proposals. They can't possibly be this bad.

MAC123 · #**198** Posted **Nov 1, 2021, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Agree 100%.

Nothing particularly problematic with the details, unoriginal as they are.

The big problem is the cantilevers and resultant massing, which not only looks hideous, but serves to actually de-accentuate the height. Not something you want to do for the city's tallest.

Looks like one of those "let's do it because we have the technology" buildings; aesthetics be damned. "let's design an upside down skyscraper, wouldn't that be novel."

All I can say is that I am glad there are other proposals. They can't possibly be this bad.

In what way do the cantilevers and massing look bad? From my point of view, they look like (and this is gonna be a shocker), cantilevers. Absolutely nothing wrong with them.
And how do the cantilevers de-accentuate the height? Because I'm also not seeing that.
"Looks like one of those "let's do it because we have the technology" buildings:" And there's something wrong with that?

Still would prefer the Hudson Spire, but seeing as that's not happening this design is perfectly fine.

Busy Bee · #**199** Posted **Nov 1, 2021, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Agree 100%.

Nothing particularly problematic with the details, unoriginal as they are.

The big problem is the cantilevers and resultant massing, which not only looks hideous, but serves to actually de-accentuate the height. Not something you want to do for the city's tallest.

Looks like one of those "let's do it because we have the technology" buildings; aesthetics be damned. "let's design an upside down skyscraper, wouldn't that be novel."

All I can say is that I am glad there are other proposals. They can't possibly be this bad.

+1

I think we're in the minority here though. Most of the height foamers on this forum are squirting their pants over this while ignorring how completely disconcerting this tower would be. It's like a cruise ship with a huge section of the hull missing and having everyone tell you its supposed to be that way and no need to worry and whats wrong with you for thinking something is messed up about that and what don't you like the looks of a ship will a hole in the side? It ain't natural.

BuildThemTaller · #**200** Posted **Nov 1, 2021, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

+1

I think we're in the minority here though. Most of the height foamers on this forum are squirting their pants over this while ignorring how completely disconcerting this tower would be. It's like a cruise ship with a huge section of the hull missing and having everyone tell you its supposed to be that way and no need to worry and whats wrong with you for thinking something is messed up about that and what don't you like the looks of a ship will a hole in the side? It ain't natural.

This was my first reaction to the Adjaye proposal as well. However, the design is not "just for the sake of it." There are site constraints on the plot of land. The MTA has a cooling tower in one corner of the plot and there is the Amtrak (or PATH or whatever) tunnel as well. Inverting the tower is not an option. Once I came to understand that, the design made a lot more sense to me and impressed me. Context matters.