NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS - Page 16

-Filipe- · #**301** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

The top portion looks similar to the old freedom tower design. However I doubt this is the final design.
I like the design but it should be at least taller than 225 57th street.

Yea i thought that to but whether its a tallest or not with all the tower proposals that we will see from the rezoning in a few years i cant see something not being taller then 225 west plus this might end up much taller as the final desgin

Zapatan · #**302** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 3:54 AM**

I really hope that's not final cuz that'd be a little disappointing

The building cheats with a lot of empty space/spire... and it doesn't look any taller than BOA but it's hard to tell

I was thinking we were going to get a 1500+ footer to the roof here

fimiak · #**303** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 4:11 AM**

That is the photoshop-era equivalent of a napkin sketch. No way can that be the final design 5 years from now.

sbarn · #**304** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 4:48 AM**

At first glance, that's a super disappointing design. However, on second thought, that is an even crappier rendering.

KPF, the 80's called and want their rendering back. Not the way to be provocative.

hunser · #**305** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 12:52 PM**

I'm still optimisitc that we'll get a signature tower here. I mean it's just a sketch of what could be built, meaning the people behind this are just trying out things- nothing's final yet.

Still, it seems to me that nowadays residential buildings push for new heights. Just have a look at 432 PA and 225 W 57th St, crazy. I don't think we'll see a 500m+ office tower in New York any time soon. That's why this tower is all about design, and not about becoming the city's tallest.

As we all know, the new King of skyscraper development is Mr. Barnett.

NYguy · #**306** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

You have to take a conceptual sketch for what it is . . . a concept.

That's true, but very hard for even seasoned render viewers to do judging from some of the comments here. People have to realize that even if we were looking at a fully detailed rendering of what was going to be built - not just a sketch - it would no doubt change multiple times before we got to construction 5 years or so down the line.

It's a drawing in basic terms of what they would like to build, a new signature tower for the Manhattan skyline. When the final design comes before the planning commission - which must approve it - I'm sure it will be something most will like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

I think it's neat to see a visualization of what could be.

It is, and I was wondering why on earth they would release a preliminary sketch. But the visualization is key though. We see all of the high profile towers proposed and being built Downtown and on the West Side. This one can't even begin construction for five years, but announcements of architects and releasing drawings is a way to stay relevant and in the game. Because, like we see with the new residential towers lately, the higher profile towers generate the most buzz and tenant awareness. If you're going to build a new office tower on the east side, you'd better build something to generate enough interests to compete with the high profile developments Downtown and on the West Side. It shows the Grand Central district to still be relevant in the discussion of next great office towers for New York. That will be very comforting to a lot of companies who don't want to jump over to the West Side or Downtown to get the best and most modern office space the City has to offer.

So, while today Related releases flashy renderings of a giant city-within-a-city, the most modern New York yet, SL Green has shown that it too can and will build for the next NY (with the same architects even), just with a lot less flash at the moment....

But stay tuned...

Sky88 · #**307** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 5:30 PM**

+

Ok, this is a simple concept, not final, but it is possible that KPF can't imagine different things from projects like BofA or Hudson Yards North Tower? And only 1.55 million square foot for a site that can has over 2 million?

Zapatan · #**308** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

That's why this tower is all about design, and not about becoming the city's tallest.

Why not both?

The lack of height doesn't bother me as much as this design (yes I know it's not final) just looks absolutely terrible, as bad as Conde Nast almost

NYC GUY · #**309** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 8:12 PM**

In 5 years this design could change alot.

khaizer007 · #**310** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88

+

Ok, this is a simple concept, not final, but it is possible that KPF can't imagine different things from projects like BofA or Hudson Yards North Tower? And only 1.55 million square foot for a site that can has over 2 million?

I absolutely agree. We all understand it's still a concept but judging from their previous work I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with something close to this "concept". I hope i'm wrong cause boy would that be disapointing!

NYguy · #**311** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

In 5 years this design could change alot.

More like in 5 yeas the design WILL change a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88

Ok, this is a simple concept, not final, but it is possible that KPF can't imagine different things from projects like BofA or Hudson Yards North Tower? And only 1.55 million square foot for a site that can has over 2 million?

Relax. We don't even know when that drawing was made. This tower is in conceptual stages, and we are still far off from what will be. Everyone else has basically put out designs for what could go there. This rendering is just a little more official (meaning from the developers), but not neccesarily more likely to be what gets built at this point. We'll critique the design along the way, but way too early for the panic mode. I don't find it to be a horrible design, but still not one that would win approval.

Sky88 · #**312** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

More like in 5 yeas the design WILL change a lot.

Relax. We don't even know when that drawing was made. This tower is in conceptual stages, and we are still far off from what will be. Everyone else has basically put out designs for what could go there. This rendering is just a little more official (meaning from the developers), but not neccesarily more likely to be what gets built at this point. We'll critique the design along the way, but way too early for the panic mode. I don't find it to be a horrible design, but still not one that would win approval.

Ok! But for the future I'm hoping for something better.

JayPro · #**313** Posted **Dec 4, 2012, 11:34 PM**

It's funny, though. While we all hope and (dare I say) pray that what gets built there is truly *iconic*, including people with clout in this regard such as Amanda Burden, it is in fact people just like her who ultimately cast the final verdict on the size and scope of an *iconic* (my stress) structure worthy of this Town.

No one here needs reminding that this same person executed a gratuitous hatchet-job on Tower Verre because it was both "too tall for the area" and "too much of a perceived threat to ESB's dominance on the skyline"...laughers that pass for rationales both.

I'm certain that her influence here won't be anywhere near as obnoxious; but I still have concerns as to how many City employees in positions of this sort of decision-making truly understand the concept of "iconicism"--for lack of a proper term--and how to apply it in a way that will make folks like you and me gasp in astonishment at the awesomeness of what can be...but only if it's simply allowed to happen. No red tape; no empty-headed NIMBY monkeyshines.

This area of Manhattan will IMO run neck and neck with the West Side for years to come as to the sheer ambition that truly bold designers and planners will put on exhibition.

NYguy · #**314** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 12:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

I'm certain that her influence here won't be anywhere near as obnoxious;

That's just the thing. With the Tower Verre, the hatchet job was just done on a whim. Here, the powers will be specifically written into the zoning. Now, in some sense, that can be a good thing, because developers will have to produce good designs to gain approval for the larger towers. But on the other hand, it still boils down to someone else's judgement. And if the Tower Verre was sent packing back to the drawing boards, you can bet the same will happen here if the design doesn't cut it.

JayPro · #**315** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 1:32 AM**

I see what you mean.

I suppose then that one cannot safely assume that a design or plan for this area would be 86'ed for reasons that could otherwise hold water, if you know what I mean.

It can be forced upon me to hear of an ambitious project for the Apple being cancelled for one reason or another, just as long as the reasoning can withstand reasoned argumentation against it. Mere whims should unacceptable to all of us who still wait to see NYC high-rise/supertall architecture take that next intrepid step forward.

Dac150 · #**316** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 1:51 AM**

In this circumstance, until a design is stamped 'final', it's not. We're talking about a considerable span of time and a considerable architectural undertaking. There will bound to be several concepts released in the coming years - that will not necessarily suggest the real deal, yet only illustrate concepts.

NYguy · #**317** Posted **Dec 5, 2012, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

Mere whims should unacceptable to all of us who still wait to see NYC high-rise/supertall architecture take that next intrepid step forward.

The process is in motion now, and should be completed midway next year. So unless the City Council strips those powers out of the final version - which I find not likely - the Planning Commision will hold that extra leverage over designs in the rezoning area. And most people will probably agree with it, because they see it as a way of ensuring quality designs, while ignoring other implications.

NYguy · #**318** Posted **Dec 10, 2012, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/48564

People laughed at this concept of an observatory from SOM. But on the west side, KPF has shown the ability to create a new and exciting observatory for Manhattan. I wonder if they will plan something equally exciting for the east side. The views midlevel and at the top would be great here.

aquablue · #**319** Posted **Dec 10, 2012, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

People laughed at this concept of an observatory from SOM. But on the west side, KPF has shown the ability to create a new and exciting observatory for Manhattan. I wonder if they will plan something equally exciting for the east side. The views midlevel and at the top would be great here.

It's not the ring that has my attention, it is the beautiful faceted tower on the left and the way it integrates underground with what seems to be a new rail station.

NYguy · #**320** Posted **Dec 10, 2012, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

It's not the ring that has my attention, it is the beautiful faceted tower on the left and the way it integrates underground with what seems to be a new rail station.

That's Grand Central. This new tower is supposed to have a direct connection, like some of the old towers in the area. East side access is bringing the LIRR into Grand Central, which will be the lowest of levels.

http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/image_gallery.htm