Which supertall will gain the title as "King of New York?"

[jayden]

NYC is undergoing a massive supertall boom at the moment. Arguably, the title as "King of New York" has always been the Empire State Building. One could also argue that the title belonged to the original WTC, or even the new 1WTC.

Below are a list of supertalls making their presence known around the city.

432 Park Avenue
Steinway Tower
Central Park Tower
30 Hudson Yards
One Vanderbilt


Then a plethora of others that are still in the planning stages. Which of these listed, or any others not listed do you feel should hold the title?

P.S. of course this is just a made up title for fun. Chill.

[Crawford]

None of the above.

The ESB is still the most iconic building, but will eventually be replaced by a new icon. But none of the current buildings u/c will meet that standard.

I think there will be something within the next 10-15 years, though. It will have to be extremely tall (something approaching 2,000 ft., probably and with incredible design). Otherwise, ESB will remain most iconic, IMO.

[chris08876]

The ESB will always be the King as a sign of respect, but in this new modern era, my vote is for Stienway aka 111 West 57th Street.

Out of all the super talls rising, it has a very Gotham like vibe with a touch of roaring 20's in its facade. Sure it might be slender, but its design inspires, awes, and keeps people coming back. Kinda like its host city.

[austlar1]

This is probably an unpopular point of view on SSP, but I don't think super-talls have the same cultural relevance today that they enjoyed in decades past. The Empire State Building has been iconic since the days of King Kong. It became the tallest building in the world at a time when that seemed to be something important. It is the one building in NYC that is instantly recognizable to the most people both in the US and abroad. These new super-talls aren't especially recognizable to anybody other than knowledgeable locals or true skyscraper enthusiasts.

[dubu]

The one that won't be under water in fifty yeard

[10023]

Originally Posted by austlar1

This is probably an unpopular point of view on SSP, but I don't think super-talls have the same cultural relevance today that they enjoyed in decades past. The Empire State Building has been iconic since the days of King Kong. It became the tallest building in the world at a time when that seemed to be something important. It is the one building in NYC that is instantly recognizable to the most people both in the US and abroad. These new super-talls aren't especially recognizable to anybody other than knowledgeable locals or true skyscraper enthusiasts.

I agree with this.

[JManc]

The ESB was the tallest building in the world for something like 40 years. The current world's tallest since the Sears have been the tallest for about 5 minutes. There's no meaning in it anymore. NYC may now have taller buildings but the ESB was and will always be king.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by austlar1

This is probably an unpopular point of view on SSP, but I don't think super-talls have the same cultural relevance today that they enjoyed in decades past. The Empire State Building has been iconic since the days of King Kong. It became the tallest building in the world at a time when that seemed to be something important. It is the one building in NYC that is instantly recognizable to the most people both in the US and abroad. These new super-talls aren't especially recognizable to anybody other than knowledgeable locals or true skyscraper enthusiasts.

Totally. It is the holotype for "skyscraper".

To think that it was completed in 1931 and still ranks among the world's tallest buildings is amazing.

Personal anecdote: when I lived in NYC, I overheard tourists on more than one occasion refer to it as the "tallest building in the world". Obviously, they weren't the type of people who care about/pay attention to these things, but it always stuck with me... how it is so strongly identified with being the world's tallest, even though it's been a longer period of time (~45 years) since it was the tallest than its actual reign as the tallest (~40 years).

[harryc]

I thought New York had Queens.

[MolsonExport]

ESB is the Global King of skyscrapers. Always has been (well, since 1931) and I think, always will be.

The most beautiful skyscraper in the world is the Chrysler Building.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The most beautiful skyscraper in the world is the Chrysler Building.

Hey, what about me?

[McBane]

Agree with all the comments here re ESB. However, the new WTC is pretty iconic, too. Which is quite remarkable given how new it is. The others on the list in the original post? I've never heard of them and so I can't imagine that the average Joe on the street has either.

In fact - and sorry if this is moving the topic of discussion too far off - I'd venture to say that there are very, very few buildings that the typical person would recognize and know it by name. And my list would be very NY-centric. Empire State Building, Sears Tower (doubtful most people know of the name change), the Twin Towers, and perhaps the Chrysler Building and 1WTC. Maybe even Trump Tower since it's been in the news so much. I can't imagine any other buildings (not skylines!) that the average person would recognize and know by name. Towers abroad? I'm probably being too generous: London's Gherkin and whatever the world's tallest building is at the moment, though they change so frequently, I think this might be a stretch.

And think about it - what other cities besides NY and Chicago - feature skyscrapers as their most iconic monument? SF has the Golden Gate Bridge; Philly has Independence Hall and the Art Museum; DC has the White House; LA has the Hollywood sign; Seattle has the Space Needle.

[Boisebro]

ESB will always be king.

but our overlords will always reside here:


source

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by McBane

Agree with all the comments here re ESB. However, the new WTC is pretty iconic, too. Which is quite remarkable given how new it is. The others on the list in the original post? I've never heard of them and so I can't imagine that the average Joe on the street has either.

I don't find the new 1WTC to be iconic, unfortunately. I think that it is only recognizaed as "iconic" because of what used to be there (and obviously the terrible event that it grew out of). I want to admire its design, but can't get over thinking that it's a disappointment overall. In fact, there's a superior version of its design in South Korea... the NE Asia Trade Tower:

[McBane]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I don't find the new 1WTC to be iconic, unfortunately. I think that it is only recognizaed as "iconic" because of what used to be there (and obviously the terrible event that it grew out of).

But I don't think that a building's architectural merits are the sole basis for achieving "iconic" status. Ironically, the Twin Towers offer the perfect example: they are/were iconic and recognized the world over; but architecturally, they were just these boring boxes. I'm not going to argue the merits of 1WTC, but its historic background, height, location, status as the nation's tallest building, and all the press surrounding it make it a fairly widely known building.

In fact, very few buildings achieve that "iconic" status based on their looks alone. The Shard and that Guggenheim Museum in Spain both got a TON of press based on their looks.

[pj3000]

432 Park Avenue
Steinway Tower
Central Park Tower
30 Hudson Yards
One Vanderbilt

Only one of these are actually built, so can we really bestow a title like "King" before they actually mark their completed presence on the skyline? 432 Park is about the least distinctive supertall imaginable... ostensibly appearing as nothing more than a taller, skinnier verison of the Shell and Republic towers in New Orleans and Houston and Denver:





And aside from impressive height, I don't find any of the new designs to be too special. Steinway renderings certainly look dramatic, but its slenderness just won't have as much of an impact on the skyline as a more stout (and tall) building would have. Also, given all the competing tall, skinny trees now along CPS/57th, it will get lost in the forest in that location.

That's also a big reason why the ESB is such a standout... it serves as a central anchor of Manhattan in a way that none other can.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by McBane

But I don't think that a building's architectural merits are the sole basis for achieving "iconic" status. Ironically, the Twin Towers offer the perfect example: they are/were iconic and recognized the world over; but architecturally, they were just these boring boxes. I'm not going to argue the merits of 1WTC, but its historic background, height, location, and all the press surrounding it make it a fairly widely known building.

If there was just one of them, they/ it would be just that tall building in lower Manhattan that surpassed the ESB but M. Yamasaki was brilliant for turning two meh buildings into a statement.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by McBane

But isn't that THE definition of iconic? The Twin Towers are/were iconic but architecturally, they were these awful tall boxes. I'm not going to argue the merits of 1WTC, but its historic background, height, location, and all the press surrounding it make it a fairly widely known building.

I don't think the new version is an "icon" because of the iconic status of the previous Twin Towers, no.

I certainly wouldn't argue that it's well known... and it would be hard for any building to be a standout on that site, given the tragic history and status of the original of course. Still, the effort to build a standout was half-hearted (and we see the results of that with a completely unfinished-looking top in an era in which a skyscraper's crown is again its prominent defining point... as it was in the golden age of NYC towers 1920s-1930s) and therefore the lukewarm response.

The original WTC was iconic because there were two gigantic towers that became the world's tallest buildings... they may have been "awful tall boxes", but again, there were two of them... and that was the first time the world had seen towers built of that magnitude.

[osmo]

The old twin towers were iconic for the various reason and largely because of their (boring) design and what they represented. It was the symbol of the American capitalist system and it was an iconic structure.

You never really see 1WTC in iconic imagery. It is very non-descript and does have the bold (almost offensive) impact that the old twin towers had.

ESB was American elegance while the old WTC was American brute arrogance and both complemented each other at opposite points of the skyline.

1WTC is designed by committee. You get a non-offensive forgetful structure. It is tall but nobody notices it aside from the hallowed spot where it sits.

Back to the OP question - ESB will always have the crown. I find it offensive any towers even attempt to beat out the ESB in height as it is impossible to reproduce the elegance ESB has in today's time - nothing will compare.

[McBane]

To clarify, I'm not saying that 1WTC is iconic only because of its history. That is definitely part of it; but remember, 1WTC is the new tallest building the US, which has to count for something, right? Also, its location makes it a very prominent building anytime the NYC skyline is shown from the NY harbor.

I guess you can argue that 1WTC is recognizable by the masses, but has not achieved iconic status, at least not yet. I'd definitely agree that it's not on the same level as the ESB or the Twin Towers.