HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 5:28 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,016
Terrible design for something that will be topping off the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 6:41 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is online now
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,121
Please for the love of god, don't build it with that horrible horrible design. Yikes, no thanks. Would ruin the skyline forever.
__________________
Gentleman, there is no fighting here! This is the war room.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 6:53 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,582
I think this will get major scrutiny once it goes through the ULURP. Also, once Gale Brewer gets her claws on this application. Still early though so a lot can happen.

But at that height, any sort of sub-par design will be hard to hide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 1:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I think this will get major scrutiny once it goes through the ULURP.
ULURP here isn't really concerned with height, directly, but rather air rights transfers, which are more routine. And it's in a business district, so no NIMBYs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post

But at that height, any sort of sub-par design will be hard to hide.
The architect and developer are first-rate, and so I have confidence. The renderings look good to me. SSP generally hates modernist boxes; people like conservative retro 80's style boxes with "hats" (see similar hate for 432 Park, CPT, etc.). The quality will all be in the glass.

And, yeah, while it will stand out, this probably won't be Midtown's tallest for more than a minute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 2:42 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,063
Not a fan of this design. What are the chances of a redesign?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 2:46 PM
RobEss RobEss is offline
Walk taker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 396
What an awful, graceless silhouette.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 3:32 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan, US
Posts: 267
Wow, beating the Central Park Tower by 1 foot? This may force Extell to bring back the spire! In this case I hope it won't reach 1775 ft as originally proposed, but at least 1777 ft so that 1WTC will no longer be the tallest. In general I despise disproportionately tall spires but having a 230 ft spire on the 1550 ft CPT is much more reasonable than having a 408 ft spire on the 1368 ft 1WTC.

As far as the latest design of Tower Fifth, I do think it looks a bit too similar to 432 Park Avenue. If the two buildings were much farther apart that wouldn't be an issue, but they are so close. I also agree with others that the protruding platform looks strange, if not awful. We might get used to it after a while though, just like we have gotten used to the one that 30 Hudson Yards has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
What I'm leading to is we'll probally see something within 1600-1700, than 1700-1800, before see see a solid 600m tower. I hope I'm wrong, and a developer with guts and an ego goes for the coveted 600m group.
The 2000 ft (610 m) Chicago Spire would look great in NYC! Keep the exact same design to save some money, but change the name to New York Spire!

Last edited by pianowizard; Jan 19, 2019 at 3:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 4:02 PM
DeSelby DeSelby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 11
Now that the initial shock has worn off and I’ve had some time to process the design, I must say I’m a bit disappointed. First of all, yet another flat roof is a letdown. Flat roofs belong in LA. NYC is a city of crowns and spires. Second, the Jenga block jutting out of the top looks strange. 30 Hudson Yards gracefully incorporates the protruding observation deck into the design, while it looks like a half-hearted afterthought on this tower.

The jenga/stacked box look in general has gotten pretty stale IMO. If this tower gets built as is then NYC will have three “stacked box” towers: Tower Fifth, 2 WTC and 56 Leonard. Plus there’s the Spiral which looks like stacked boxes from a distance. I hope architects abandon this trend soon, it’s played out now.

I had high hopes that this tower would have a really stunning design, since it’s a career capstone for Macklowe and a very exclusive office tower. Instead we’re getting another boxy supertall.

I’m thrilled about the height though! Perhaps the design will grow on me. We’re so spoiled in NYC that we’re complaining about 1500 ft towers!

Also, this Dan Shannon is merely the architect of record and Gensler is the actual design architect right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 4:37 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yup. Extell won't like being topped. I think they'll have a "response" in due time.

Barnett wants to be the skyline king of Midtown.
Awful design! Anyone can design that junk! Concerning topping rights, sounds eerily like the early 30's when the Chrysler and ESB were going up.
This is from Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building

"Chrysler realized that his tower's height would exceed the Empire State Building's as well, having ordered Van Alen to change the Chrysler's original roof from a stubby Romanesque dome to the narrow steel spire. However, the Empire State's developer John J. Raskob reviewed the plans and realized that he could add five more floors and a spire of his own to his 80-story building, and subsequently acquired the nearby plots needed to support that building's height extension. Two days later, the Empire State Building's co-developer, former Governor Al Smith, announced the updated plans for that skyscraper, with an observation deck on the 86th-floor roof at a height of 1,050 feet (320 m), higher than the Chrysler's 71st-floor observation deck."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 5:24 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 40,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
Terrible design for something that will be topping off the skyline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Not a fan of this design. What are the chances of a redesign?

There's a good chance the design is refined as this moves forward, but I'm not outraged by it like some others appear to be. A flat top? It will be no more outrageous than Central Park Tower (it's twin in height), 432 Park, or even the Chase Tower, which will be a more massive building. None of these towers will bring us the great spire the city deserves, but once you move past that, It's another tower that aims to take advantage of the ever growing and record breaking number of tourists that flood the city streets each year.

It will be a very public building, with features that make it more inviting to the public than some of the other towers going up anywhere. It won't be a "billionaire's tower" like so many of the critics of the new towers like to claim.

I can see the biggest issue for NIMBYs as being the location, above St Patrick's. But even if you cut the height by a third, you'd still have a 1,000 ft tower rising above, not really much of a difference from the street.

The difference would be on the skyline. And after the initial massing we saw, I was prepared for the worst, but pleasantly surprised by this. Is it a "great" design? I don't think it's great, it's just a more straight up version of 30 Hudson. Is it going to ruin the skyline? Hell no. If CPT and 432 Park haven't done it, if Chase's massive tower won't do it, I see no reason why this will. It's not necessarily what I want, but neither are the others.

These towers are like toys for me, and Christmas keeps on coming. Even just a year ago, we had no reason to expect this, but here we are headed for ULURP where things will get interesting.






__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 5:43 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post

The 2000 ft (610 m) Chicago Spire would look great in NYC! Keep the exact same design to save some money, but change the name to New York Spire!
Yeah... it would of been a great Hudson Yards signature tower. Like in an alternative universe, I would of moved the Vessel to Phase II, closest to the Hudson River, and place the Spire where the Vessel currently sits. The Vessel aka the Staircase being the ornament for the complex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
Wow, beating the Central Park Tower by 1 foot? This may force Extell to bring back the spire! In this case I hope it won't reach 1775 ft as originally proposed, but at least 1777 ft so that 1WTC will no longer be the tallest. In general I despise disproportionately tall spires but having a 230 ft spire on the 1550 ft CPT is much more reasonable than having a 408 ft spire on the 1368 ft 1WTC.
With CPT, it really adds to the design. The renderings with the spire add so much to it. Not even for height, but the spire would do wonders for the aesthetics, which IMO, override height. A tower is nothing without aesthetics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 6:49 PM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TXpatriate
Posts: 2,159
I don't hate it...the facade looks interesting. Honestly though, I just don't get why these designs have to be so rigidly beholden to a basic rectangular profile. It looks like a larger version of the original design for the Hudson's Tower in Detroit. But hey, that design was changed in favor of something more dynamic, maybe we can hope for the same here.

Best evolution with this development is the dropping of that "St. Steven's" name. Dunno where that was supposed to be derived from.
__________________
BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 6:59 PM
cozy cozy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 266
Design is meh, 1500 and one is a total cop out. Not impressed. But not disappointed.
__________________
Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 7:40 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by cozy View Post
Design is meh, 1500 and one is a total cop out. Not impressed. But not disappointed.
Yeah, it's pretty lazy, and kind of just steals the design concept from an earlier iteration of that Hudson Block in Detroit (https://www.freep.com/story/money/bu...ht/1533123002/).
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 7:46 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,479
Ugly as shit. Hard to believe that this is in the same general category of objects we call “buildings” when compared with Verre and Steinway (yes, I get those are residential buildings, but we can still do much better than this with a bulky footprint). Height is nice, but I really hope this design changes significantly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 8:27 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,582
I'm kinda curious with the facade. While we can get an idea of it with the high res version, I think a closer shot is needed to really study if there is anything unique with it (materials/contrast). I think the top is what irks folks. It somewhat has a resemblance to 432 Park. But maybe it'll grow on us once we see closer facade renderings.

Quote:
According to several people who have seen Macklowe's proposal, he has envisioned a clear, plastic or glass-enclosed slide that would protrude from the building's exterior,
I wonder what they are refering to when the say "plastic". IDK, but the word plastic sounds cheap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 8:32 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,582
The YIMBY article is out on this.

That 1 foot though. Barnett must be like WTF. Because saying your the tallest tower by roof height is further ammo for sales. Being 2nd? 2nd sucks. Isn't as good as 1st! Kinda like a Gold medal is way better than Silver, and Gold is worth more anyways when it comes to commodities.


====================


Harry Macklowe’s “Tower Fifth” To Become New York City’s Tallest Building By Roof Height, Rising 1,551′ To Pinnacle At 5 East 51st Street, In Midtown East



Quote:
Skyline-defining towers have proliferated across the Midtown and Lower Manhattan skylines since the start of the 2010s, with the new World Trade Center joined by clusters in Hudson Yards, and 57th Street. Now, as One Vanderbilt approaches the 1,000-foot mark, a new race is appearing on the horizon in Midtown East. First, JPMorgan announced plans for a 1,400-foot-plus behemoth at 270 Park Avenue. Today, renderings have been released for Harry Macklowe’s planned office tower at 5 East 51st Street, which the developer has dubbed “Tower Fifth”. The supertall would become the tallest building in New York City by roof height upon completion, soaring 1,551 feet above the streets down below.

While plans for the new tower have been circulating for several months as Macklowe has assembled the site, Charles Bagli of the New York Times scooped the rendering reveal yesterday evening.

As Mr. Macklowe told the Times, “Tall buildings are a reality. The days of restrictions on buildings are really over. This is a building that’s never been built before, a 21st-century building.”


The renderings for the tower, featuring design by Dan Shannon of Moed de Armas & Shannon Architects and Gensler, confirm Macklowe’s towering ambitions. The overall envelope and appearance appear to mix several contemporary styles. Up top, a cantilevering observation deck utilizes the same form as 56 Leonard, but in a public-facing format that will yield the city’s highest observation deck, consisting of multiple floors. The very top also appears to be characterized by a diagrid of crossbeams, reminiscent of Jean Nouvel’s 53 West 53rd Street.

Below, the overall bulk of the tower is a clear echo of Macklowe’s skyline-defining triumph located six blocks to the northeast, at 432 Park Avenue. Spanning 5-9 East 51st Street and 12-20 East 52nd Street, the specific address for “Tower Fifth” has not yet been decided upon, but the supertall borrows several of 432 Park’s design motifs, like soaring floor heights, interspersed cut-outs for mechanicals and wind resistance, and a skinny profile, to achieve the kind of towering ambition that is becoming increasingly prevalent all across Manhattan.

Notably, the rendering is also angled in a way that Tower Fifth completely blocks Central Park Tower, which it will surpass in height by a single foot.

With 96 floors, the building will become the third-tallest office tower by floor count, beat only by the Empire State Building’s 102 levels and One World Trade Center’s 104 floors. While Tower Fifth may be challenged by 270 Park Avenue pending that project’s finalization, the floor total of 96 is substantially greater than One Vanderbilt’s mere 67 stories, which result in a 1,401-foot parapet thanks to its uppermost architectural ornamentation. In the case of “Tower Fifth,” the bulk of the tower will continue all the way to the rooftop. However, the rendering does not depict how the cantilever will look, as according to Bagli, the building sits atop two 400-foot-tall stilts before yielding to the majority of its occupied space.



[...]


No completion date has been confirmed yet, and plans must first traverse several layers of City Planning, as the proposed design is beyond the current allowed scope of the site even with the Midtown East rezoning.
======================
NYY
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 8:47 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,582
The CTBUH hasn’t added this tower yet, but just a snap shot of whats rising in the 300m category or planned/complete.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 10:00 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
You realize Macklowe built the most expensive residential tower in NYC history, right? Designed by Vinoly, a starchitect.

deleted

Last edited by pico44; Jan 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2019, 10:07 PM
Hudson11's Avatar
Hudson11 Hudson11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
432 Park is the result a very specific quest. To build the least expensive luxury residential tower possible.

Macklowe is a scumbag cheapskate @sshole. Other than that, he's a great guy...
that's BS. 432 Park has some of the highest quality concrete in the world along with massive, uninterrupted windows that must cost a pretty penny.
__________________
click here too see hunser's list of the many supertall skyscrapers of New York City!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.