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

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Please stop trying to make excuses. It's a lame set back box with no design innovation. Also it's actually shorter than sears so no real height innovation.

No, it's not a box, it's taller than Willis by all measures, and equal in height to 1 WTC. I'll certainly take it.

If you don't like "boxes" then you will never like buildings in NYC. NYC is built on a grid.

You will never have a large proportion of NYC highrises that don't meet the streetwall, because unlike almost every other city out there, NYC builds skyscrapers right to the lot lines, rather than Pudong-style, in stand-alone, set-back style. This means that NYC will always build mostly boxes, because any other shape will degrade the urban form. Even in Hong Kong, an extremely urban city, the tallest buildings are fundamentally anti-urban and Pudong-style.

I personally prefer the Manhattan style over the Pudong style because I am more an urbanist than a skyscraper fan. if the highrise isn't contributing to the urban environment, to me, it doesn't make sense.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by nbrandwein

To play devil's advocate, the true "roof" height appears from the diagram to be 1428' - which would be shorter than Willis Tower if the yardstick is highest point at which someone can stand on a solid structure. I still can't help but think this tower could have been truly iconic, with this same design, but with a bit more "true" height. Why couldn't Barnett simply have delivered on his original intention to build to 1550' to roof?

A parapet is a roof, it will have a visual mass of 1480' which is not bad at all. More than I was expecting actually.

Not a fan. Looks pretty brutal and the roof height is not really 450m. I thought nyc would have towers in the Swfc range to roof by now. It's just another set back box.

SWFC is 1614' feet, 135 feet higher than this guy, not really a huge difference between such massive buildings.

This actually beats Taipei 101 to the roof as well.

But it looks like nothing's going to break 1 WTC's 1,776 foot height in the near future. Clearly Barnett is being careful here not to inflame tensions being so close to after 9/11 and 1WTC still being under construction. Careful thought was put into the spire height.

I know it's really weird, enough with the stupid symbolism and move on. I hope the spire at least looks nice.


The design is a little weird but I'm kinda pleasantly surprised that Sears Tower will no longer be the highest roof in the USA.

[aquablue]

del

[gramsjdg]

A spire at each corner would look better (4 total). The placement of the single spire looks a bit like an afterthought.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Please stop trying to make excuses. It's a lame set back box with no design innovation. Also it's actually shorter than sears so no real height innovation.

So I guess Union Square in Hong Kong isn't really a 1580' foot building, or 2IFC in Hong Kong as well not really a 1350' footer. Or even Philadelphia's comcast building isn't actually 975'

Gimmie a break, solid roofs are less and less common among modern buildings, 1WTC is 1370' but the top slab is 1330 something, it doesn't matter, all we will see is a 1480' building on the skyline with a (seems like) nice looking spire.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

So I guess Union Square in Hong Kong isn't really a 1580' foot building, or 2IFC in Hong Kong as well not really a 1350' footer. Or even Philadelphia's comcast building isn't actually 975'

Gimmie a break, solid roofs are less and less common among modern buildings, 1WTC is 1370' but the top slab is 1330 something, it doesn't matter, all we will see is a 1480' building on the skyline with a (seems like) nice looking spire.

tower is awesome.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by aquablue

This doesn't address why the design is so lame. This isn't the 70s anymore.

That's not what you were talking about, you were talking about roof height, the design is your opinion but that doesn't change that this will overthrow Sears as highest roof (parapet, whatever same difference) in the USA/Western World.

The building has a visual mass of 1480' which will be the highest in the city/country/continent/hemisphere and a big spire, I'm not really complaining.

[hunser]

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/new-...-street/14269/
http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/chic...lis-tower/169/

Sears Tower
Figures
Height: Architectural 442.1 meter / 1451 feet
Height: Occupied 412.7 meter / 1354 feet
Height: To Tip 527.0 meter / 1729 feet
Height: Observatory 412.7 meter / 1354 feet
Floors Above Ground 108
Floors Below Ground 3
# of Elevators 104
Top Elevator Speed 8.1 m/s
Tower GFA 416,000 m² / 4,477,787 ft²

217 West 57th Street
Figures
Height: Architectural 541.0 meter / 1775 feet
Height: Occupied 415.4 meter / 1363 feet
Height: To Tip 541.0 meter / 1775 feet
Floors Above Ground 92
# of Apartments 223

[NYguy]

Give it the damn 2 feet. Why do they have to tease?


I'm still not loving this design.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Give it the damn 2 feet. Why do they have to tease?
I'm still not loving this design.

I think it's a kind of taboo that noone is allowed to go taller than 1WTC, which of course is total BS. The city needs to move forward, the WTC can't stay the tallest forever. At least the building has a spire, which sets it apart from the other 57th Street towers. Btw can you please add "FLOORS" to the thread title? Thanks.

[NYguy]

BTW people, we already know spires count towards the height. If a spire is added here, it's the same as any other.

Originally Posted by hunser

I think it's a kind of taboo that noone is allowed to go taller than 1WTC, which of course is total BS. The city needs to move forward, the WTC can't stay the tallest forever. At least the building has a spire, which sets it apart from the other 57th Street towers.

I remember Barnett saying there wouldn't be a spire, but maybe Smith convinced him it would be a way of setting this tower apart from the others. Now it's time for 432 Park to reveal it's planned 500 ft spire, Chrysler-style...

[Skyguy_7]

^ Funny you say that. I often imagine a spire atop the Aon Center here in Chicago. It's a relatively simple addition that would make these two particular buildings mind-blowingly better. One can only dream..

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Please stop trying to make excuses. It's a lame set back box with no design innovation. Also it's actually shorter than sears so no real height innovation.

Excuses? I'm afraid not.

First of all, I'd like to think that I've been attuned to these various conversations all over the NYC-realated threads long enough to understand that economic conditions coupled with tenant demands are the basic driving forces behind what gets built, why and how.

That said, does anyone really think that a high-end bidder like Nordstrom's would appreciate some developer--take your pick--accosting them with a meaningless question like "So...given its location in our great city, do you want your North American/World HQ's to look like a psychedelic phallus or a Barnsley fern?"
IMO they seemed to have wanted something that said "Here We Are" rather loudly, but at the same time perhaps rejecting ideas that to them would have either trivialized or diminished outright the image of their enterprise.

IMHO, It was never in the cards for this tower to shatter some sort of imaginary, preconceived mold vis a vis "innovation", whatever that term is taken subjectively to mean. As I said before, the residential aspect of this tower probably contributed just as much into "dumbing it down", again because the demand all over New York for affordable living space is a naturally prohibitive strike against anything that remotely smacks of extravagance.

[hunser]

The solid roof structure is at 1,428' which is pretty much consistent with the 1,424' figure from the massing model.

[Blaze23]

Typical AS&GG building tall and totally uninspired. Looks better than the previous design tho, and I like the spire added to it. Pretty decent height too. Not gaga over it but overall a nice addition to the skyline.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^ Funny you say that. I often imagine a spire atop the Aon Center here in Chicago. It's a relatively simple addition that would make these two particular buildings mind-blowingly better. One can only dream..

If this does indeed come through with the spire, you have to wonder if his design for Trump Chicago played a part in Barnett accepting the spire to boost the height over the others. I just find 1,775 to be too gimmicky. Everyone knows the Freedom Tower spire is at 1,776 (even if its really higher). Stopping just short of it is a little ridiculous.


But I can see similarities between this tower and Trump.



http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/chic...el--tower/203/



www.yimbynews.com

[Blaze23]

Yea give me a break with the height. I don't care if they made it shorter or taller than 1WTC, but 1ft shorter shows a complete lack of imagination, kinda like the tower in general.

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'm still not loving this design.

Agreed, it is better than original version but there is still too much clutter at the bottom part of the tower.
According to YIMBY these are not official renderings so I hope there will still be room for improvements.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Excuses? I'm afraid not.

First of all, I'd like to think that I've been attuned to these various conversations all over the NYC-realated threads long enough to understand that economic conditions coupled with tenant demands are the basic driving forces behind what gets built, why and how.

That said, does anyone really think that a high-end bidder like Nordstrom's would appreciate some developer--take your pick--accosting them with a meaningless question like "So...given its location in our great city, do you want your North American/World HQ's to look like a psychedelic phallus or a Barnsley fern?"
IMO they seemed to have wanted something that said "Here We Are" rather loudly, but at the same time perhaps rejecting ideas that to them would have either trivialized or diminished outright the image of their enterprise.

IMHO, It was never in the cards for this tower to shatter some sort of imaginary, preconceived mold vis a vis "innovation", whatever that term is taken subjectively to mean. As I said before, the residential aspect of this tower probably contributed just as much into "dumbing it down", again because the demand all over New York for affordable living space is a naturally prohibitive strike against anything that remotely smacks of extravagance.

Are you saying that due to affordable housing in this tower they dumbed the design down? Residential towers are usually the ones that are getting the most innovative/interesting/extravagant designs in NYC.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by ILNY

Agreed, it is better than original version but there is still too much clutter at the bottom part of the tower.
According to YIMBY these are not official renderings so I hope there will still be room for improvements.

Let's hope the glass is spectacular.