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

[MayDay]

Originally Posted by eXodius

WOW! These are very impressive shots! Somewhat OT but what sort of camera/lens/settings did you use? I was out there in mid-June with a Canon R6 and didn't get nearly as crisp shots of CPT and everything else like you did!

Thank you, much appreciated I've been using a Canon RP (specifically this setup). Still figuring out the settings - but keep in mind there's usually less humidity in NYC in the fall, so that can also affect how photos come out.

[pianowizard]

IMO the photo below shows one of the better perspectives. From many of the other angles, this building looks either too bland or a bit awkward/weird. If it looked this good from all angles, I suspect fewer people would be criticizing it.

Originally Posted by MayDay

[MolsonExport]

Those are really great photos, MayDay.

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by noms78

What are all those white things inside the windows? It ruins the aesthetic of the upper part of this tower?

Aesthetic???

This tower categorically has NO aesthetics. Its is a massing exercise that is 1500+ feet tall; the shape is synonymous with building a tower that is 1500 feet tall as cheaply as possible.

A testament to how some developers like Extell should absolutely have no bearing on "contributing" to the NYC skyline as they tastelessly besmirch it with visual trash like this that emanates out of it. As far as Smith and Gill goes, they seem to have really needed to money from this atrocious commission; not a shred of architectural dignity is reflected on this, with the exception that is tall; a towering showcase of indifference to aesthetics or embellishment of any kind.

I suppose you can split hairs by comparing it with 432 Park, but they are both different variations of the same exercise, built it tall and cheap, even if its ugly.

[NYguy]

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

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by noms78

The white things on the windows of the 3 observation deck levels. They look like paper diagrams stuck to the insides of the windows

What observation deck levels are you referring to?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

I suppose you can split hairs by comparing it with 432 Park, but they are both different variations of the same exercise, built it tall and cheap, even if its ugly.

This is like a toddler-level understanding of architecture, design and real estate.

Glass towers aren't "cheaper" than masonry. You may not like the aesthetics, but developers don't go with glass bc they want to save money. Their glass/masonry decisionmaking is based on their perception of target market preferences, not whether they can get a deal on masonry at Home Depot or something. Geez.

And 432 Park and CPT are among the most expensive residential towers ever erected, anywhere on the planet. They're the antithesis of "cheap". Quality glass is incredibly expensive, generally more expensive than masonry, and labor costs are extremely high.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

Aesthetic???

This tower categorically has NO aesthetics. Its is a massing exercise that is 1500+ feet tall; the shape is synonymous with building a tower that is 1500 feet tall as cheaply as possible.

A testament to how some developers like Extell should absolutely have no bearing on "contributing" to the NYC skyline as they tastelessly besmirch it with visual trash like this that emanates out of it. As far as Smith and Gill goes, they seem to have really needed to money from this atrocious commission; not a shred of architectural dignity is reflected on this, with the exception that is tall; a towering showcase of indifference to aesthetics or embellishment of any kind.

I suppose you can split hairs by comparing it with 432 Park, but they are both different variations of the same exercise, built it tall and cheap, even if its ugly.

Since when is $3 billion cheap????

[jackster99]

^maybe he's a time traveller from the future. At current inflation rates, a Big Mac might cost $3 billion soon

[NYguy]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUu9xsDA8J2/










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

Showing our fabulous duplex at Central Park Tower to California buyers - they can almost see California from here!!!

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUteJB-s35M/






















https://www.instagram.com/p/CUq2kRFgZE-/

“Buyer with a red balloon” at 129th floor of Central Park Tower

[Drcastro]

That appears to be much too low to be the 129th floor. Or are they numbered even weirder than I thought?

[pianowizard]

^ I totally agree. This so-called "129th floor" looks to be only around 350 meters high, using 432 Park Ave as a reference.

[NYguy]

The 129th would be somewhere close to the top.

[NYguy]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CU0CEA1AAuw/






https://www.instagram.com/p/CUxRlsDL3p5/

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

IMO the photo below shows one of the better perspectives. From many of the other angles, this building looks either too bland or a bit awkward/weird. If it looked this good from all angles, I suspect fewer people would be criticizing it.

I wrote the above on Oct 5, without providing an explanation because I couldn't articulate why I liked this view. But now I can, after seeing harryc's recent post in the One Chicago thread: CPT somewhat resembles One Chicago from this angle. Here's his post: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...postcount=3235

[NYguy]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CU9HU65MNo-/

[Reeder113]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

Aesthetic???

This tower categorically has NO aesthetics. Its is a massing exercise that is 1500+ feet tall; the shape is synonymous with building a tower that is 1500 feet tall as cheaply as possible.

A testament to how some developers like Extell should absolutely have no bearing on "contributing" to the NYC skyline as they tastelessly besmirch it with visual trash like this that emanates out of it. As far as Smith and Gill goes, they seem to have really needed to money from this atrocious commission; not a shred of architectural dignity is reflected on this, with the exception that is tall; a towering showcase of indifference to aesthetics or embellishment of any kind.

I suppose you can split hairs by comparing it with 432 Park, but they are both different variations of the same exercise, built it tall and cheap, even if its ugly.

Meh, I think this tower looks great. To each their own, I guess.

[Barney Greengrass]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

Meh, I think this tower looks great. To each their own, I guess.

Agreed. As slivers go this one is successful, and frankly I think a spire wouldn't add anything and might in fact have been awkward. I direct my hate mail to 432 Park.

[NYguy]

Screen grabs from the Dronalist...


• Video Link


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Screen grabs from the Dronalist...


• Video Link


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.

Can't believe in a couple of years this building won't be the tallest any more. Just right now we have 3 proposals that will be taller (1 one of them is gonna have to walk a tightrope to pass). And I'm sure there will be more soon.