NEW YORK | One57 (Carnegie 57) | 1,005 FT | 75 FLOORS

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by Lecom

I agree with NYguy. To me, this tower has more of a classic New York look than Tower Verre, which is billed as the epitome of Hugh Ferris massing studies. It seamlessly combines Art Deco massing and verticality motifs with the boxiness and coroprate look of mid-20th century towers, both of which are trademark New York skyscraper styles.

Besides, it will pack one helluva punch on the skyline.

FINALLY! It's here.

I find it funny that back in December I was hoping we'd get this rendering by the new year. Still, I actually am quite impressed. I took the time to skim the last 8 pages of the thread or so and get an idea of not only the building but the opinions expressed so far. It's interesting, yes this building may not pack the futuristic architectural punch that Tower Verre once did but it actually may be more truly New York.

Tower Verre I always loved, but looking comparatively now, Verre always struck me as the tower of tomorrow, almost like a conceptual template of the next 100 years of design. It was truly dynamic, and I'm sure the redesign will be just as much so. Carnegie 57, on the other hand, has many elements of a classically New York skyscraper. It reminds me a little of how I remember seeing and thinking of the city when I was a little kid and my dad would take me into Manhattan and show me the skyscrapers. We went inside towers like Trump Tower, the IBM Building and the Sony Building, and they had those clean lines, geometric shapes and vast, sunlit lobbies. Like Lecom said, this tower pays homage not only to the classic Art Deco towers that set the standard for the Manhattan skyscraper, but also the International-style, Modern and Postmodern towers that really shaped the city we see today.

I say this tower will be a winner on all counts. Definitely worth the wait!

[OneWorldTradeCenter]

For an editor: Please add 2013 as completion year. Here and in the diagrams. The source is the NY-Times Article. Thanks!

[TheCity]

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

For an editor: Please add 2013 as completion year. Here and in the diagrams. The source is the NY-Times Article. Thanks!

Multiple sources have stated 2013 as the finish date, but have never given an actual month.

I am guessing it would be towards the end of 2013 and possibly be delayed into 2014, but who knows.

[Nowhereman1280]

I'm glad to see this has turned out to be a fine design! Classy!


Then there is this:



What the hell is this monstrosity? Did someone let Park Tower and Elysian in Chicago mate? What a horrible design...

[Ordo_]

Yes it's hideous.

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

Like Lecom said, this tower pays homage not only to the classic Art Deco towers that set the standard for the Manhattan skyscraper, but also the International-style, Modern and Postmodern towers that really shaped the city we see today.

Its amazing to me how a few pages of cyclic boosting can change a tower from "meh" and "disappointing" to "winner on all counts" and "icon." lol.

I'm nervous about this tower, and StatenIslander237's comment I think really makes it clear why. This tower doesnt seem to be coherent. For everything I like about it, I can see a really serious potential pitfall.

Setbacks dont make a building deco. The great deco towers either have symmetical or balanced setbacks and this building has neither. It appears that the West and North faces have no horizontal setbacks at all, while the South and East have multiple. Its massing doesnt draw a strong central line but an angled one to the corner.

The building tries to counteract this with these beautiful vertical lines, but I worry that if the glass is too distinct as in the drawings, it creates this kind of postmodern pinstripe effect which could be distracting.

The other postmodern aspects...the slanted setback and the curverd roofs add in more effects that just arent referenced elsewhere. It just seems an odd disruption form what is otherwise a fairly flat facade. The Y shaped banding on the crown makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Then there is the obvious bubble-strip feature that will probably make or break this building. I'm betting this technique is responsible for the irregular banding appearance on the East and West facades. I've like it when Portzamparc has used this technique before, but vertically over a whole facade for 1005'? It seems risky to me in that it might come off as kitschy and dated.

It seems to me that our towers tend to be more idologically pure than most cities and this one really mystifies me from a design standpoint because I cant really place it in any specific category. It certainly isnt what the deveoplers have been hyping it up to be and seems a bit estranged from what Portzamparc does, even in his multiple projects here and elsewhere.

Regardless, its always nice to see new developments going up and its great we're actually getting a 3rd true supertall. I hope Portzamparc overcomes my concerns and delivers.

[lakegz]

^not all Art Deco skyscrapers have symmetrical setbacks. Here are a few examples just in NY.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fna.../500_fifth.jpg


http://www.aviewoncities.com/img/nyc/kveus2318b.jpg

[JSsocal]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'm glad to see this has turned out to be a fine design! Classy!

What the hell is this monstrosity? Did someone let Park Tower and Elysian in Chicago mate? What a horrible design...

That is 99 Church Street
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=122343
^
^That one all depends on execution, but it is designed by Robert Stern so I have high hopes...

[Ordo_]

Originally Posted by lakegz

^not all Art Deco skyscrapers have symmetrical setbacks. Here are a few examples just in NY.[/IMG]

I said symmetrical or balanced. There are alwasys going to be exceptions, so I'm making pretty accurate generalizations about towers of this magnitude. American International is symmetrical, as are most of the big deco towers. I'd consider 500 5th Ave "balanced", albeit its North facade was apparently forgotten by the architect.

However, you still see strong central momentum and a lot more movement than in Carnegie 57. If this is what Portzamparc was going for, I dont think he captured it well.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by Ordo_

I'm nervous about this tower, and StatenIslander237's comment I think really makes it clear why. This tower doesnt seem to be coherent. For everything I like about it, I can see a really serious potential pitfall.

Setbacks dont make a building deco. The great deco towers either have symmetical or balanced setbacks and this building has neither. It appears that the West and North faces have no horizontal setbacks at all, while the South and East have multiple. Its massing doesnt draw a strong central line but an angled one to the corner.

The building tries to counteract this with these beautiful vertical lines, but I worry that if the glass is too distinct as in the drawings, it creates this kind of postmodern pinstripe effect which could be distracting.

The other postmodern aspects...the slanted setback and the curverd roofs add in more effects that just arent referenced elsewhere. It just seems an odd disruption form what is otherwise a fairly flat facade. The Y shaped banding on the crown makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Then there is the obvious bubble-strip feature that will probably make or break this building. I'm betting this technique is responsible for the irregular banding appearance on the East and West facades. I've like it when Portzamparc has used this technique before, but vertically over a whole facade for 1005'? It seems risky to me in that it might come off as kitschy and dated.

It seems to me that our towers tend to be more idologically pure than most cities and this one really mystifies me from a design standpoint because I cant really place it in any specific category. It certainly isnt what the deveoplers have been hyping it up to be and seems a bit estranged from what Portzamparc does, even in his multiple projects here and elsewhere.

This tower appears to be a take (post modern or not) on Streamline Moderne.

Streamline Moderne, sometimes referred to by either name alone, was a late type of the Art Deco design style which emerged during the 1930s. Its architectural style emphasized curving forms, long horizontal lines, and sometimes nautical elements.

It's as if Portzamparc took the archetypal streamline moderne building and tipped on end to turn it into a skyscraper. Long horizontal lines are turned into vertical ones. The horizontal curves get flipped too. What are the nautical elements? Imagine the crown is the prow of a boat cutting through the water. Those glass waves at the base? They represent actual waves. And of course the building is a blue/green color.

Voilà! A thousand foot long barge.


I say it might be post modern because tipping a building on its side is a very post modern concept.

Unfortunately, the 'random' facade on the east/west sides does not fit into this interpretation of the design.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by Ordo_

I'm nervous about this tower, and StatenIslander237's comment I think really makes it clear why. This tower doesnt seem to be coherent. For everything I like about it, I can see a really serious potential pitfall.

Setbacks dont make a building deco. The great deco towers either have symmetical or balanced setbacks and this building has neither. It appears that the West and North faces have no horizontal setbacks at all, while the South and East have multiple. Its massing doesnt draw a strong central line but an angled one to the corner.

The building tries to counteract this with these beautiful vertical lines, but I worry that if the glass is too distinct as in the drawings, it creates this kind of postmodern pinstripe effect which could be distracting.

The other postmodern aspects...the slanted setback and the curverd roofs add in more effects that just arent referenced elsewhere. It just seems an odd disruption form what is otherwise a fairly flat facade. The Y shaped banding on the crown makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It seems to me that our towers tend to be more idologically pure than most cities and this one really mystifies me from a design standpoint because I cant really place it in any specific category. It certainly isnt what the deveoplers have been hyping it up to be and seems a bit estranged from what Portzamparc does, even in his multiple projects here and elsewhere.

Pardon but don't misunderstand me. In my opinion, it isn't just the setbacks that answer to deco towers like 500 Fifth and American International, but also the massing. If you look at the computer model from the southwest shown on the previous page, I must say that the verticality of the building is quite apparent and centrally located in the heart of the tower. The first rendering from the base already looks to be a poor representation of the over look of the building.

The Y fan feature is a little kitschy, I'll give you that, but I think that the building probably needed something to cap it up top, and that Y will probably not be very loud during the day and stand out at night, when it will look best.

Also, Portzamparc hasn't really completed many projects here in the city. There is the proposed 400 Park Avenue South, which I don't really care for (talk about odd massing), and the LVMH Tower, which is more along the lines of Portzamparc's signature style and is an excellent building, but it may not work on a larger scale. For example, the renderings of the proposed Riverside Center, however early and conceptual, scared me a little. I don't know that towers like that would fit well into the Manhattan skyline.

On the other hand, I would have been extremely disappointed if this was an outright replica of an art deco tower either. You can only have so many Robert A.M. Stern creations in the city before we start to look attached to backwards designs. New York needs a continuous balance of yesterday, today and tomorrow to be what it is. This tower seems to blend well old New York, new New York, and Portzamparc's design philosophies.

[Fabb]

I'm glad that verticality is back in NY again.
The vertical lines enhance the upward movement in a way that we haven't seen in NY for decades.

[scalziand]

Just realized that the profile from the park looks like the Grant Park 4 proposal in Chicago.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by scalziand

Just realized that the profile from the park looks like the Grant Park 4 proposal in Chicago.

Carnegie 57 is much nicer.

[JACKinBeantown]

This is my opinion, and I'm sure many people will disagree with me, and that's OK. But...

I generally like art deco skyscrapers better than most of the new blue glass angular ones. Art deco buildings have very cool designs, and they're made to express scale and verticality. They have vertical lines and clearly delineated windows. They have storefronts and are usually designed to fit in well with their surroundings. Don't get me wrong... there are some very cool things happening architecturally in China, Dubai, etc. but most of the blue glass things going up are pretty average. Just look at 42nd street.

However... the fact the New York is getting plenty of blue glass buildings (ie - what people think of as modern skyscrapers) shows the rest of the world that while, yes, Dubai and China are building all these buildings to show off to the world that they have arrived, New York (and Chicago and others) are showing off to the world that we aren't going anywhere in light of the fact that we're getting plenty of blue glass buildings too. And as we all know, blue glass buildings are what most people in the world think of as cool these days.

So bring on the blue glass buildings... as long as they are architecturally cool. This one could be OK. I still want to see some better renderings before making my formal opinion.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

However... the fact the New York is getting plenty of blue glass buildings (ie - what people think of as modern skyscrapers) shows the rest of the world that while, yes, Dubai and China are building all these buildings to show off to the world that they have arrived, New York (and Chicago and others) are showing off to the world that we aren't going anywhere in light of the fact that we're getting plenty of blue glass buildings too. And as we all know, blue glass buildings are what most people in the world think of as cool these days.

Why do you even care about what's going on in Dubai and China? Forget about them, they've spent their wad. It's high unlikely they will see nearly as many skyscraper developments this decade as they did last, while New York will probably more this decade than last. It's just blue glass, it's not going away in design yet.

[NYguy]

Please keep this topic on Carnegi 57, and not on what may or may not be getting built around the world.

[Fabb]

I just realized that Carnegie 57 will be the West Side's echo to Citigroup Center on the East Side.
Only taller, less angular, but similar slanted roof.

[RobertWalpole]

I think that Carnegie 57 will be even nicer than Citicorp because it has a series of slanted roofs.

[evanmack]

I hope this will be accompanied by Tower Verre

[RobertWalpole]

I'll bet that -- unless the European economic crisis precipitates a double dip recession -- Torre Verre will start rising next year. There is great demand in NY right now for very high-end properties, and Torre Verre, together with Carnegie 57, will satisfy this demand.