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

[bopoqod]

Yeah, I know, I was just poking fun at the misspelling in the drawing of "Nordstorm" rather than "Nordstrom." I guess I went at it a little too subtly for my intent to be obvious.

[hunser]

Thread title is still missing "FLOORS".



The solid roof of the structure is marked as the 93rd floor. Typical floor seems to be 18', pretty impressive. I bet the tower will be marketed as a 100-story building.

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by LMich

I'd definitely say something a bit taller to the roof, but even just an important as that, I'd say something far more architecturally striking, too. Another boxy supertall isn't going to cut it.

If indeed this latest model is once and for all the thing to go by, I would suggest that while simple "boxy" geometry is the basis for the design, much time has passed since the vaunted CB5 meetings to reshape this thing into something that relieves this tower of any bad rap for plainness in this regard.
As far as I'm concerned, the architects seem to have succeeded here. There are clearly visible refinements in this tower's proportions and setbacking (horizontal and vertical) sufficient to call it something more than a box derivative.
I can't really describe it any other way. It also looks as if at leas superficially, the mech floor spaces will receive some kind of facade treatment that seems to create an illusion of further geometric refinement...somewhat like notches or grooves carved into the surface.
PS: The double spire element atop what seems to be a finned crown extension is a finale IMO almost genius in its constraint. IOW, it's stops just short in the right place of being something that critics of "overdoing it" would jump all over.

[gramsjdg]

Definitely a major improvement, and 1478 is a good number.

To be fair, the roof height issue has been muddled lately with so many buildings having parapets. By strict roof definition, this is still 15 feet shorter than Sears roof at 1443 (not counting utility shed). However, parapet height is for all practical purposes the same as roof height when viewed from anywhere than above the building. For instance, most people forget that WTC-1's actual roof height is only 1335 feet, where the original North Tower was the full 1368.

The addition of a spire is interesting given Extell's earlier statements "no gimmicky spire" etc.

[scalziand]

It's definitely close enough that there could be some counting shenanigans with mechanical levels to reach 100 floors. There could be 3-4 mechanical levels hidden by the parapet; if those are double counted for being effectively double high, that would yield a count of 101 floors.

[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?

[Onn]

The design is classic New York, with the careful rectangular geometry. I don't think that's a bad thing here, it works well! Kind of reminds me of 7 South Dearborn in Chicago that was never built. Nothing to be ashamed of here.

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.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Onn

The design is classic New York, with the careful rectangular geometry. I don't think that's a bad thing here, it works well! Kind of reminds me of 7 South Dearborn in Chicago that was never built. Nothing to be ashamed of here.

But it look 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.

Its been 13 years. The best way to pay homage to 9/11 and its victims is to move on -its business as usual in New York City...we're not going to let that day keep us down literally or figuratively.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Its been 13 years. The best way to pay homage to 9/11 and its victims is to move on -its business as usual in New York City...we're not going to let that day keep us down literally or figuratively.

No I certainty would not do that, but ordinary people do not understand that, in particular those who lost family and friends during 9/11. Otherwise Barnett would almost definitely have gone past 1,776 feet. There had to be some hesitation on his end. I would not expect this to stop a future building in New York from breaking 2,000 feet though, but for the moment such boldness still looks to be tempered.

[bopoqod]

Anyone have a topographic map handy? I'm curious if the elevation at this site is more than a foot higher than the WTC site. If it is, this tower will be sorta kinda taller than 1 WTC... depending how you look at it.

[JayPro]

Once someone adds this to the NY skyscraper diagram, it'll be interesting to see commentary on how this design and 1WTC make the Ultiamte Bookends.
Edit: Come to think of it, IMO it's gonna be quite difficult to choose which straight-on profile of this tower to choose, unless the person who volunteers the effort wants to do all four. Otie's choice to do the four profiles at an angle intrigues me, if for no other reaspn than to play up on the contrasts made here with 111 57th...if that was his intention. The double spire placed at a corner rather than dead center is maybe the piece de resistance so-called.

The only other thing I'm looking for, as I observed a while back, is a closter study of how the facade will really look, i.e. hue, texture etc.. It seems to me that it won't betray any sort of monotony, though.

[hunser]

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?

There will be mechanical equipment etc. Same with 1WTC, you can stand on that parapet, 1478 feet above street level.

Originally Posted by scalziand

It's definitely close enough that there could be some counting shenanigans with mechanical levels to reach 100 floors. There could be 3-4 mechanical levels hidden by the parapet; if those are double counted for being effectively double high, that would yield a count of 101 floors.

Yep, exactly my thoughts. The mechanical floors are pretty massive. F.e. 432 PA has 85 "real" floors, but if you count the double high mechanical levels as 2 floors, you get 89.

[JayPro]

(Image courtesy of Nikolai Fedak/YIMBY and Odie O'Daniel)


This render with slight magnification shows how the black portions of the facade will apparently be dealt with. Just below the setback to the lleft, there actually seems to be an indentation in the curtain wall. At the lower setback to the right, there looks to be an angled edge of profound ssubtlelty. A magnified image will provide a better idea.
BTW, the vertical black stripe is a reflection caused by the vertical setback/recession/ someone pretty please tell me the official term for this.
Thanks.

[aquablue]

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.

[NYC GUY]

I really like it!

[aquablue]

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?

I don't think Barnett cares about height. Otherwise the spire would not exist.

[JayPro]

@aquablue:

While I agree with your sentiment, I would suggest that the form of this building has ultimately taken has been somewhat dictated by Nordstrom's itself, to wit the impression it wishes to make upon New York City. It would seem to me that whatever "flashiness" might be seen in the design-if it can be so called--is to give the impression that this will be the Mother Ship for a well-known upscale retailer.

OTOH, the residential aspect of this building seems to take a cue from Larry's latest venture into the supertall realm at the West Side. Folks who seek affordability really aren't looking for architectural eccentricity. They want a place to live in; and if a gilded huge box in that area is needed to meet Mayor DiBlasio's call for more in this commodity, then perhaps the same is called for here, with careful compromise, to be sure.

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Tower Verre is the only NY supertall that had reduced height. Every other one you listed, it wasn't the case.

You are right, only Tower Verre had height reduction. The others had height cut.

Originally Posted by Crawford

. And you forgot to mention all the towers that had increasing height (including 432 Park, 107 W.57, One Vanderbilt).

Because that was not a point of my discussion. BTW, One Vanderbilt is still years away so design and height may change many times.

Originally Posted by Crawford

"Downgraded design" is subjective, and every tower on earth has revisions, so I'm not going to comment on something that is just opinion.

Right, "downgraded design" is subjective term but I was referring to 1WTC and 3WTC. I think everyone here agrees that having 1WTC spire stripped without outer shell did degrade the design. How else would you call it?

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by JayPro

@aquablue:

While I agree with your sentiment, I would suggest that the form of this building has ultimately taken has been somewhat dictated by Nordstrom's itself, to wit the impression it wishes to make upon New York City. It would seem to me that whatever "flashiness" might be seen in the design-if it can be so called--is to give the impression that this will be the Mother Ship for a well-known upscale retailer.

OTOH, the residential aspect of this building seems to take a cue from Larry's latest venture into the supertall realm at the West Side. Folks who seek affordability really aren't looking for architectural eccentricity. They want a place to live in; and if a gilded huge box in that area is needed to meet Mayor DiBlasio's call for more in this commodity, then perhaps the same is called for here, with careful compromise, to be sure.

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.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ILNY

You are right, only Tower Verre had height reduction. The others had height cut.

No, no others you listed had height cut. And you conveniently "forgot" all the supertall height increases (now five by my count).

Originally Posted by ILNY

Because that was not a point of my discussion. BTW, One Vanderbilt is still years away so design and height may change many times.

I have no idea what this means. Yes, a building design can change. And?

Originally Posted by ILNY

Right, "downgraded design" is subjective term but I was referring to 1WTC and 3WTC. I think everyone here agrees that having 1WTC spire stripped without outer shell did degrade the design. How else would you call it?

I would not agree, at all. I don't care whether or not they put a "shell" on the antenna, or not, and I doubt 99.9% of people know or care. It isn't a design issue anyways.