NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS - Page 62

pico44 · #**1221** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 10:24 AM**

I actually agree with North One here. This is such a shame. And a million times worse because the building replacing these gems is an absolute design disaster. I keep hoping that another tenant signs on and demands a redesign a la WTC2

NYguy · #**1222** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 3:13 PM**

^ I'm not gonna go into a long tirade here about the reason for One Vanderbilt's construction, and the loss of some buildings.

If you don't understand it, it's only because of a lack of understanding of Midtown East, (both it's standing in the city and the reason for the rezoning of the area).

Back to the tower itself, I had never seen this rendering before...

http://www.jgch.org/onevanderbilt/

BoM Trespasser · #**1223** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 4:55 PM**

I like the way 1 Vanderbilt towers over the MetLife building.

CityGuy87 · #**1224** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 5:28 PM**

This tower completely dwarfs (yet complements) the Chrysler Building and will absolutely dominate the Midtown skyline.

It will be an instant icon when completed and I'm quite excited about this one!

chris08876 · #**1225** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 5:39 PM**

Seems like it towers over 432 too. Incredible. I love how it complements the Chrysler. So... are we still debating the merits of those buildings that it will replace.

Look at what we are getting people. Its a hell of a trade.

GeneralLeeTPHLS · #**1226** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 6:05 PM**

This looks like a nice new addition to the skyline if built, wouldn't mind to see this built.

Doubleu1117 · #**1227** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 6:42 PM**

Wow those renders show how beautiful a tower this will be. It fits right in, and i hope that nothing like 2 WTC happens to it, i hope the grand central law suit blows over quick and this building gets built. This is my most anticipated tower in the city, not skinny, not a BIG "innovative design", just a good design perfect for it's place and city.

chris08876 · #**1228** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneralLee(Toronto )

This looks like a nice new addition to the skyline if built, wouldn't mind to see this built.

No worries or hesitations btw, this will rise. So no "if" but when. This is a 100% certainty.

That rendering with 432 at night, with this adding another iconic peak to the skyline is worthy of new pc wallpaper. That crown looks like it could have some dazzling displays of color if they incorporate a LED system like the ESB.

NYguy · #**1229** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 7:30 PM**

I still find the crown to be a little bit "clumsy", and the spire itself isn't anything original. But overall it's not as bulky as some of the renderings made it out to be, so that's cool.
It will be a great addition to a skyline that is getting so many.

I see a little bit Shanghai Tower treatment here...

http://www.chinauniquetour.com/html/...arts-7695.html

Resized these a bit for better viewing...

Submariner · #**1230** Posted **Oct 10, 2015, 10:54 PM**

If the final setback were a little bulkier, I think it would flow a bit better with the other setbacks and the gentle slope of the tower as a whole.

Either way, if built (crossing my fingers that Penson's lawsuit gets tossed) this will be an impressive addition to the skyline and a fine addition to a stretch of 42nd that's a little too dreary and dark.

Yesh222 · #**1231** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 1:58 PM**

If the render with it reflecting the Chrysler Building is accurate it will be absolutely gorgeous from the street. And it will complement the Chrysler instead of just dwarfing it. They better use 4 WTC quality glass for that.

WIGGLEWORTH · #**1232** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 2:49 PM**

^Agreed. How expensive was that type of glass?... it looks gorgeous.
We have a new modern peak guys!!!

Dac150 · #**1233** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 3:57 PM**

The enhancement to the skyline aside, I'm more excited about the enhancement to street level this development will bring. The current, soon to be former, make up of that block adds no value to the area.

Sic'EmBears · #**1234** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 4:38 PM**

A few questions:

What are some buildings in Manhattan with poor quality glass?

Aside from 4 WTC, what are some other buildings with high quality glass?

Is glass quality measured by its reflectivity?

KevinFromTexas · #**1235** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 6:35 PM**

I'm still thinking this is going to be New York's best new supertall. I was going to give that distinction to the Nordstrom Tower, but then they went and sawed off the spire on that one.

I do agree with you, NYguy, that the crown is a bit clumsy. It would be nice if they tweaked it a bit to make it more elegant/slim to that the proportions are more pleasing to the eye. This one's going to be sharing the air with the Chrysler Building so it should be elegant and beautiful.

By the way, NYguy, welcome back!

The North One · #**1236** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 7:05 PM**

I'm so sick of hearing this "museum" nonsense, preserving a portion of a cities' history and having it be functional and a vibrant place are NOT mutually exclusive. Paris isn't a giant "museum".

sorry, a little OT.

RobEss · #**1237** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sic'EmBears

A few uestions:

What are some buildings in Manhattan with poor quality glass?

Aside from 4 WTC, what are some other buildings with high quality glass?

Is glass quality measured by its reflectivity?

My personal standards for glass relate to the levels of distortion in a pane's reflection (ie. flimsiness) and to the effectiveness of the chosen tint and color.

A good comparison to make for these criteria is between the 'Sculpture for Living' tower on Astor Place and 7WTC.

I feel the first example, the Astor Place tower, defines the type when it comes to subpar glass - the distortion in each pane is apparent from a considerable distance and is only magnified by the chunky curves of the building. The color and tint of the glass is also off-putting, being a bit too blue and a bit too shiny to look anything but juvenille

In comparison, the glass on 7WTC provides a sturdy and uniform reflection, even when viewed from a distance. The color of the glass is much subtler and, when paired with the translucency, creates an almost iridescent appearance. Where the glass in the previous example dominates and distracts from the form of the building, the glass on 7WTC accentuates and compliments it's structure.

Here are two images to compare:

Sic'EmBears · #**1238** Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 12:56 AM**

Thank you, Rob.

NYguy · #**1239** Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'm still thinking this is going to be New York's best new supertall. I was going to give that distinction to the Nordstrom Tower, but then they went and sawed off the spire on that one.

I do agree with you, NYguy, that the crown is a bit clumsy. It would be nice if they tweaked it a bit to make it more elegant/slim to that the proportions are more pleasing to the eye. This one's going to be sharing the air with the Chrysler Building so it should be elegant and beautiful.

By the way, NYguy, welcome back!

I'm still holding out hope that the crown is tweaked more, which it probably will be. I think the Nordstrom Tower will probably have the better glass. I think the glass on that one is what will make it stand out. I hope I'm not wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm so sick of hearing this "museum" nonsense, preserving a portion of a cities' history and having it be functional and a vibrant place are NOT mutually exclusive. Paris isn't a giant "museum".

Well, New York isn't Paris. And we're talking about New York's office buildings, which go a long way toward keeping the city what it is. Thankfully the smart people have realized that the antiquated office buildings just aren't cutting it. The city created the Hudson Yards to provide for new office space construction with adequate floorplates. But there are reasons why the Grand Central district has been the city's top business district, great transportation being among the top. To say that the buildings should be left as is because you like the "look" of them - nevermind the functionality - is exactly wishing it became some sort of museum. But besides that point, there will be far more older buildings than new, not enough to even compare. So all of the critics of the rezoning and building of new office space are way off base.

intheburg · #**1240** Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 7:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm so sick of hearing this "museum" nonsense, preserving a portion of a cities' history and having it be functional and a vibrant place are NOT mutually exclusive. Paris isn't a giant "museum"

sorry, a little OT.

Agreed: Paris is not a museum. And agreed: history, functionality and vibrancy are not mutually exclusive.

Yet, even in our present age of working from anywhere, business districts still need tens of millions of square feet (and in the case of NYC, hundreds of millions of square feet) of space in suitable locations, and this space needs to be appropriately fitted for the nature of its varied uses. It shouldn't be surprising that 21st century business has needs that might not be able to be met within the design of many 19th and 20th century buildings, even with significant interior adjustments. This will also be true, I presume, in 22nd and 23rd century New York, when One Vanderbilt might be torn down. Or maybe One Vanderbilt will be landmarked, if it's iconic enough. Or maybe One Vanderbilt will still be suitable for 22nd century needs. We'll see what 22nd century New Yorkers need, want, and decide. Best wishes to them, and I hope they make judgments that suit them well.

Why do so many New Yorkers (like myself) lament the destruction of the old Penn Station? Is it because it was old and beautiful? That's part of it, but it's not why it was a tragic decision. It was a tragedy because it was replaced with something that was worse at being a train station in every way than the original, including (but not limited to) aesthetics. But that does not appear to be the case with One Vanderbilt. While I agree that the existing buildings have character and charm, that isn't the only question I ask when I evaluate a proposal. For me, there are two questions: (1) whether a particular building is good at being what it is in the location it is in, and (2) whether it is superior to what has been proposed to replace it.

People will answer these two questions differently for any particular project, but for me, the answers in the case of One Vanderbilt are clear.

Using a what-will-be-gained standard, it is clear to me that the general concept of a 21st century office tower at this intersection as well as the particular design of One Vanderbilt is of more value to this city and its people than the current structures, which I agree have their merits. Its just that the merits of the existing structures do not rise to the merits of their proposed replacement.

But if the value of the proposal were less than the value of the existing buildings, I'd agree that it would be great if we could keep things as they are, not out of sentimentality for what is lost, but because there would be too little gained.