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

[NYguy]

One more thing, for Macklowe to be submitting this to City Planning to begin ULURP, it must signify that he is on the verge of or already has secured all of the properties needed for the project. I would think that, at his age, Macklowe would want to begin this project as soon as he could (including securing financing, tenants, etc.) if it gets approved.

[KevinFromTexas]

Wow. I'm really not a fan so far. I don't mind the color and shape, and I actually like the notch in the tower with the (balcony?), and I like the overhang. That top, though. I want to put a paper bag over it. It looks like a robot from Futurama.

[NYer34]

This design is world-class atrocious.

Honestly, this would be an unfortunate but quickly forgotten design for a 400-foot rental building at 42nd and 11th. For what it is, it's a giant middle finger to the city from Macklowe.

If this isn't redesigned, I hope the city finds a way to cut it down massively - just as it (stupidly) did to Tour Verre, one of the best pieces of architecture since Deco died and Modernism began its endless reign.

[chris08876]

There's a comment from Nikolai Fedak (YIMBY) stating that this is actually 1,556’6″ to the roof top. The OP article title was adjusted to: " Harry Macklowe’s “Tower Fifth” To Become New York City’s Tallest Building By Roof Height, Rising 1,556′ To Pinnacle At 5 East 51st Street, In Midtown East"

[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

[NYguy]

^ Let's hope it gets through planning.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Wow. I'm really not a fan so far. I don't mind the color and shape, and I actually like the notch in the tower with the (balcony?), and I like the overhang. That top, though. I want to put a paper bag over it. It looks like a robot from Futurama.

The top that extends out actually sets it apart from other towers (like 432 Park) that just rise straight up. Seems like there at least 3 separate glass parapet levels up there. Can't see the corkscrew slide from the render. There will be a better understanding when we get more renderings.

Originally Posted by chris08876

There's a comment from Nikolai Fedak (YIMBY) stating that this is actually 1,556’6″ to the roof top. The OP article title was adjusted to: " Harry Macklowe’s “Tower Fifth” To Become New York City’s Tallest Building By Roof Height, Rising 1,556′ To Pinnacle At 5 East 51st Street, In Midtown East"

Not surprising.

[Thefigman]

I wasn't sure I would like 432, but the simple design and stark color contrast have worked for me having seen it come to life. Especially at night.

I'm not sure about the wider box and cantilever, but I'll wait and see what becomes of it before I judge.

[Zerton]

I just want tall buildings to have spires. It that so much to ask for?

[Busy Bee]

Spires shmires. At this point I'll take anything that isn't a flat roof.

[Zerton]

^ That's what I mean. Some form of crown or spire or something. Not just a 432 Park flat roof.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by NYguy

A spire would help, but a well integrated spire. I've been saying all along the skyline needs more spires and peaks. Not everyone agrees.

You and I disagreed on this point before, but not because I am absolutely against spires. If you are referring to spires and peaks like those in the drawing below, then they have my vote. But NYC already has so many buildings with absurdly huge spires that I feel that going forward we need to be careful, or else NYC might become infamous for relying on spires to boost the structural heights of its skyscrapers. We all still remember how upset and indignant people felt when the Petronas Towers became the world's tallest building by "cheating" with spires. NYC's reputation might be at stake if this city has too many more spire-bearing skyscrapers.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/413205334541916940[/QUOTE]

[Submariner]

Not going to lie...I hope this tower does not get built.

[NYer34]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Not going to lie...I hope this tower does not get built.

Ditto. I'd take what's there - and the potential they offer - over this crap.

The only way you could do worse at this site is by hiring Gene Kaufman.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NYer34

Ditto. I'd take what's there - and the potential they offer - over this crap.

The only way you could do worse at this site is by hiring Gene Kaufman.

The only way you could do worse than a 1,557 ft. starchitect-designed tower with some of the highest office rents on the planet on a tiny lot currently occupied by tumbledown tenements, would be if you built a Motel 6? SSP is funny sometimes.

Unless you're a NIMBY or have city-envy, this is pretty much as good as it possibly gets.

[Prezrezc]

The crown seems to be the bee in the bonnet here; but I'm liking this design alot.

First of all, how many skylines in the world could then boast of two extended ob decks, one of which with this tower is a Nordstrom-sized cantilever in the heavens?

Secondly, IMO like One57, a severe challenge posed to the architects by the framers of notoriously severe city zoning laws seems to have been answered much more than adequately. I assure you that this hulking thing didn't just get traced out from a vacuum. By way of example, perhaps the greatest task was to respect the urban presence--for lack of abetter term--of arguably the most venerable and recognizable religious landmark in town.
In the abstract, the tower apex's architecture is particularly remarkable for its symmetry. They could've noodled around a bit with the upper two parapets(?) and made a roided version of that recently completed staggered tower in Austin.
That they didn't was a smart choice.

PS: I also like the subtle overhang on the tower's CP-facing profile.

Aye vote I.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zerton

I just want tall buildings to have spires. It that so much to ask for?

I feel the tallest tower in New York should have one.

Originally Posted by pianowizard

You and I disagreed on this point before, but not because I am absolutely against spires. If you are referring to spires and peaks like those in the drawing below, then they have my vote. But NYC already has so many buildings with absurdly huge spires

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.

[NYguy]

Back when they were calling this thing "St Stevens New York", which seems like years ago, but was only last week, I thought we might be getting something that more directly related
to Saint Patrick's Cathedral in design. And maybe it still will, who knows? But it will be easy to view this tower as it soars above the cathedral.



Mike Weekes Jr.





serveracris





yahir.romero





Tony Shi Photos

[jayden]

Y'all really think it's that bad?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jayden

Y'all really think it's that bad?

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.

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by jayden

Y'all really think it's that bad?

The top looks worse than the early versions of the Detroit Hudson Tower.