NEW YORK | 53W53 (Tower Verre) | 1,050 FT / 320 M | 73 FLOORS - Page 47

ardecila · #**921** Posted **Sep 5, 2009, 9:37 PM**

Are the crazy beams structural, or merely superficial?

JSsocal · #**922** Posted **Sep 6, 2009, 1:47 AM**

Structural, and thats what I think makes it so cool

Hed Kandi · #**923** Posted **Sep 6, 2009, 1:59 AM**

..

mrnyc · #**924** Posted **Sep 6, 2009, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Where've you been? They're already out...

oh, but you know the for real rats will take good care of entertaining those nimby rats during the construction phase.

it will serve them right for their whining and ridiculous attempts to delay the complete awesomeness that is this tower. haha.

JDRCRASH · #**925** Posted **Sep 6, 2009, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

In this economy it isn't getting built any time soon

Don't be so sure.

theWatusi · #**926** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 11:54 AM**

This thread is for discussion about the Tower Verre, not the number of supertalls under construction, not general discussion about NIMBYs, not discussion about the WTC or number of supertalls in Chicago.

Stay on topic.

NYguy · #**927** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 1:00 PM**

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...-amanda-burden

The Week of Amanda Burden

By Eliot Brown
September 7, 2009

Quote:

The giant wave of end–of–second–Bloomberg-term land-use approvals is making its way to the halls of 22 Reade Street, as the Department of City Planning, led by the powerful Amanda Burden, is tackling a mass of major planned developments this week.

Here’s a quick rundown of what's on tap:

Jean Nouvel/MoMA/Hines 53rd Street Tower — The planned 1,250-foot tower, designed by Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel, is up for a vote before the City Planning Commission on Wednesday. Here in the process Ms. Burden can—and has been known to—change the shape and/or height of projects. (Recently, she changed the design, and lobbed a story off, of David and Jed Walentas’ Dock Street building in Dumbo.) Will she feel the need to adjust the famous Frenchman’s design?

Tomorrow is the big day for City Planning approval...

Zapatan · #**928** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 8:26 PM**

Well... good luck Tower verre, and NYC.

NYguy · #**929** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 10:16 PM**

Must be a joke...
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...99s-moma-tower

Amanda Burden to Chop 200 Feet Off Nouvel’s MoMA Tower

By Eliot Brown
September 8, 2009

Quote:

“The commission notes that the proposed design of the building is exemplary and that the building … would be a strong addition to the city and its architecture.

However the commission believes that the applicant has not made a convincing argument that the design of the tower’s top, with the uppermost 200 feet of the building, merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s iconic spire, making the building the second tallest building in New York City.

…

“It appears that less attention has been paid to this portion of the building, … in particular the commission is not satisfied with attempts at incorporation mechanical equipment into the tower top, which results in a tower top with a highly visible mechanical equipment.”

AlexYVR · #**930** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Must be a joke...
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...99s-moma-tower

Amanda Burden to Chop 200 Feet Off Nouvel’s MoMA Tower

By Eliot Brown
September 8, 2009

Heart = dropped, and I'm from 3000 miles away.

Hed Kandi · #**931** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 10:54 PM**

..

NYguy · #**932** Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

?

If Nouvel goes back and redesigns that top portion, is there a chance it could be approved?

We'll have to wait and see what the actual vote and reasoning is for approval/disapproval.

sbarn · #**933** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 12:46 AM**

While I completely disagree with Burden's position... this doesn't surprise me too much. Often developers will overstate the height / bulk of a tower in anticipation that it will get downsized.

NYguy · #**934** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 1:08 AM**

Just a warning, any attempts to inflame this thread will be deleted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn

While I completely disagree with Burden's position... this doesn't surprise me too much. Often developers will overstate the height / bulk of a tower in anticipation that it will get downsized.

Again, we'll have to wait until we see the reasoning and restriction on the design, and whether or not this tower can even be built as it with the reduced height, or whether the developer will have to revert to the as-is option. Remember, the special permits the developer was seeking both had to do with lower levels of the tower, not the top.

Quote:

the commission believes that the applicant has not made a convincing argument that the design of the tower’s top, with the uppermost 200 feet of the building, merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s iconic spire.....

“It appears that less attention has been paid to this portion of the building, … in particular the commission is not satisfied with attempts at incorporation mechanical equipment into the tower top, which results in a tower top with a highly visible mechanical equipment.”

Makes little sense, considering the as-of-right version is the one the Planning Commision wanted to avoid.

Another look at the as-of-right building, and the proposed 1,250 ft tower:

Mechanical space at the top; don't know what more you could do with that...

Antares41 · #**935** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 1:32 AM**

Sounds like the ball is in Nouvel's court. I imagine they will try to justify the 200ft in question before acquiescencing to any changes. Looks like they are in the typical back and forth negotiation that usually occurs with a project of this magnitude. Nothing is final at this point.

Zapatan · #**936** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 1:39 AM**

Well just because this bimbo amanda burden wants the towers top cut off doesn't necessarily mean it will happen though. The news is always looking for a story after all.

sbarn · #**937** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Well just because this bimbo amanda burden wants the towers top cut off doesn't necessarily mean it will happen though. The news is always looking for a story after all.

Why would a developer be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, on the approvals stage of a project that they don't think will happen??

NYguy · #**938** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antares41

Sounds like the ball is in Nouvel's court. I imagine they will try to justify the 200ft in question before acquiescencing to any changes. Looks like they are in the typical back and forth negotiation that usually occurs with a project of this magnitude. Nothing is final at this point.

If the height reduction is a conditional approval of the permits, it would result in a bulkier tower, a blow to the NIMBYs as well. The developer would have to fit the Museum/residential/hotel space into a shorter tower.

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegr...ing_repor.html

Quote:

News Flash: City Planning Report Decapitates Nouvel’s MoMA Monster

NY City Planning Commissioner Nathan Leventhal

You go, Nat!

It was NY City Planning Commissioner Nathan Leventhal who publicly raised the question about the elephant-in-the-skyline during last month's hearing on the planned MoMA/Hines tower, designed by architect Jean Nouvel.

It was the simplest of queries from a sophisticated interlocutor---the former president of Lincoln Center, whose early career included a stint as the city's Commissioner of Rent and Housing Maintenance...

if all goes as expected, the City Planning Commission tomorrow will vote to lop 200 feet off Nouvel's soaring ambitions.

At the commission's review session today, which I attended, Edith Hsu-Chen, director of City Planning's Manhattan office, read these excerpts from the CPC's draft report on the MoMA/Hines project:

In particular, the Commission is not satisfied with the attempts at incorporating mechanical equipment into the tower top, which results in a tower top with highly visible mechanical equipment. Therefore, as a condition of its approval and to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area, the Commission is modifying the application to reduce the height of the building to 1,050 feet.

Zapatan · #**939** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 2:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn

Why would a developer be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, on the approvals stage of a project that they don't think will happen??

huh? No I meant it doesn't mean a height decrease will necessarily happen, I didn't mean the building wouldn't be built (I still don't think it will but that's another story...)

Zapatan · #**940** Posted **Sep 9, 2009, 2:56 AM**

Quote:

In particular, the Commission is not satisfied with the attempts at incorporating mechanical equipment into the tower top, which results in a tower top with highly visible mechanical equipment. Therefore, as a condition of its approval and to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area, the Commission is modifying the application to reduce the height of the building to 1,050 feet.

Dear god these people are Nazi's