NEW YORK | 30 Hudson Yards (North Tower) | 1,296 FT | 92 FLOORS - Page 13

patriotizzy · #**241** Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

After seeing these new renderings i've changed my mind.

Why does related seem incapable of building anything that doesn't resemble a box or series of boxes placed on top of each other? They must be some of the most conservative developers in the world.

The towers have nothing going for them, they are not even exceptionally tall. They avoided building tall and instead built 3 fat bulky towers that have no grace or soar at all. Instead of going for something modern, they went retro. NY needs new innovative buildings, not throwbacks to the 70's.

The tallest tower seems to attempt to give the appearance of being a true super tall by using an absurdly tall spire to reach its height. What a failure.

The cladding looks like the old WTC with its metal fins and small windows, 1970's crap.

Overall major disappointment, other than the parks and retail section.

You took the words right out of my mouth and wrote them unto this post. Thank you.

I would like to say that I do not 100% like these building designs. I would probably guesstimate around 25%. These buildings remind me of the ugly 1960s-70s boxes that were popular at the time. The only saving grace seems to be the glass. Hopefully the renders aren't exaggerating their quality and we get something good out of it. Instead of the boxes stacked inside each other, why not setbacks? Instead of having those stacked boxes sticking out from the buildings at odd places, just take them out and add setbacks! I don't get how the developers think this is remotely close to a mediocre design, it's an abomination.

As with everything else, I really hope at the end, it isn't as ugly as it looks.

BStyles · #**242** Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 6:33 PM**

Again, ugly. Geez, do they have a design submitting contest somewhere? Because I'll sign up!

UrbanImpact · #**243** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 12:58 PM**

I don't even want to believe it

RobertWalpole · #**244** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 2:55 PM**

While this is not what anyone was expecting, the north tower nonetheless is virtually the identical shape of the new tower on Bishopsgate in London (but a lot taller), and everyone creams over that.

NYguy · #**245** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

The unfortunate thing is this project, despite its size, lacks the ambition that made the WTC so distinctive; instead of sheer monstrosity, it's simply ugly overall.

I'd argue the opposite. It's ambitious in it's own right, being built when and where it is.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**246** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

While this is not what anyone was expecting, the north tower nonetheless is virtually the identical shape of the new tower on Bishopsgate in London (but a lot taller), and everyone creams over that.

what tower are you talking about? it cant be this one,right?

http://londonoffices.com/news/wp-con...7/Pinnacle.jpg

NYguy · #**247** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 3:55 PM**

The development really has morphed from what was Related's original concept and closer to the Brookfield concept that everyone seemed to like.
Remove the design of the first couple of towers, they are very similar in form.

original

new

Brookfield

Related original

A throwback to the original Hudson Yards rezoning, when a stadium was proposed for half of the railyards...

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**248** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 4:01 PM**

i hate to say this but...between RoberWalople's post and NYguy's last post, im totally lost. what's going on,did the design change or something?

aquablue · #**249** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 4:42 PM**

I think the original Related centerpiece tower is superior to these new ones in design. I don't like that type of cladding that resembles the WTC. I much prefer a glass curtain wall.

patriotizzy · #**250** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 5:02 PM**

Someone should seriously send these negative comments to the company. They should see that these buildings are universally disliked.

yankeesfan1000 · #**251** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 7:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

i hate to say this but...between RoberWalople's post and NYguy's last post, im totally lost. what's going on,did the design change or something?

NYguy was reviewing past proposals for the site, sort of a timeline. The design that most people seem to dislike is still what we have for now.

I'm certainly in the minority here, but if they do actually look like what's in the more detailed renders I'll be reasonably happy. They're not the best designs in the world, but it's been said before that Related is relatively conservative, and in this economy where not many large scale projects are moving forward, I'm happy that this one is.

And when this project is done in say, 7-10 years, these towers are going to have a lot of company, Girasole, Sheerwood Equities, MW, 15 Penn, the rest of the railyard, so there's still plenty to look forward to.

babybackribs2314 · #**252** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

NYguy was reviewing past proposals for the site, sort of a timeline. The design that most people seem to dislike is still what we have for now.

I'm certainly in the minority here, but if they do actually look like what's in the more detailed renders I'll be reasonably happy. They're not the best designs in the world, but it's been said before that Related is relatively conservative, and in this economy where not many large scale projects are moving forward, I'm happy that this one is.

And when this project is done in say, 7-10 years, these towers are going to have a lot of company, Girasole, Sheerwood Equities, MW, 15 Penn, the rest of the railyard, so there's still plenty to look forward to.

Besides Girasole (I think), all of those planned developments are also glass boxes. Maybe this is Related trying to break up the 'monotony' (they do--and it makes it WORSE), but I think this underscores the broader problem of how anything simple is relatively accepted these days. Would I really hate it if these were built? No. But I'm sure they could come up with something vastly more remarkable for the same cost of how this was designed.

This is really the case with most of the other neighboring developments we've seen, as well. 15 Penn, Manhattan West, and Sherwood's towers (given what we've seen of it) have all been shown to be... drumroll... giant glass boxes. None of them are bad, but none of them are great; just boring glass towers you would find in some random Chinese city.

There are some glass towers with great designs (IMO) that are getting built--the WTC Towers (besides 4, which is... a box, but still good), Carnegie 57, hopefully Torre Verre, and in London there's the Shard among several others. If we could just get one or two iconic glass skyscrapers in the entire development of the area, I guess I would be happy (iconic does not necessarily mean massively tall, although I think that could help this area dramatically).

STR · #**253** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

I think the original Related centerpiece tower is superior to these new ones in design. I don't like that type of cladding that resembles the WTC. I much prefer a glass curtain wall.

Umm...it is a glass curtain wall. They just have extended mullions.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**254** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

Besides Girasole (I think), all of those planned developments are also glass boxes. Maybe this is Related trying to break up the 'monotony' (they do--and it makes it WORSE), but I think this underscores the broader problem of how anything simple is relatively accepted these days. Would I really hate it if these were built? No. But I'm sure they could come up with something vastly more remarkable for the same cost of how this was designed.

This is really the case with most of the other neighboring developments we've seen, as well. 15 Penn, Manhattan West, and Sherwood's towers (given what we've seen of it) have all been shown to be... drumroll... giant glass boxes. None of them are bad, but none of them are great; just boring glass towers you would find in some random Chinese city.

glass boxes? Manhattan West and 15 Penn Plaza are far from boxes, they look more organic.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5...ine2bc0vh2.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/...c0423138_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/...4874c423_o.jpg

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/VornadoPelliTowers.jpg

http://secondavenuesagas.com/wp-cont...5Penn_dusk.jpg

babybackribs2314 · #**255** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:23 AM**

That last picture makes me love 15 Penn, actually (I still think it's a basic glass box though). It reminds me of something from Coruscant; it would be great if Related took the cue.

patriotizzy · #**256** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:37 AM**

The original design with the stadium looks 100X better. I wish they would take the pyramid looking building from the original, and stick in the place of the tall building in the new proposal.

aquablue · #**257** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 1:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR

Umm...it is a glass curtain wall. They just have extended mullions.

I see. I don't know a lot of the technical language.

Anyway, yes, it is those extended mullions that I feel look very old fashioned.

aquablue · #**258** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

That last picture makes me love 15 Penn, actually (I still think it's a basic glass box though). It reminds me of something from Coruscant; it would be great if Related took the cue.

Most of NY's buildings that actually get built are box-like, although I don't agree this one is a 'basic' box. A basic box wouldn't curve at all. You just have to accept the reality of NY zoning, grid system, etc. Until a tower verre is actually kicks off or something similar, i'll only expect boxes to be built. Right now all those beautiful towers are vapor.

NYC2ATX · #**259** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 8:20 AM**

I don't really dislike these towers. I think it's a perfectly interesting and attractive design. Groundbreaking? Not at all. But not all of the buildings that go up in this city can be mindblowing centerpieces, otherwise there'd be no background for the true exclamation points to shine amongst.

Also, remember this is the first phase of a large project. That view from the Hudson River will only exist until the subsequent phases are built, and Related might just wow us then. At that point, these designs may make A LOT of sense, as the backdrop to a very varied and unique complex.

Think of Rockefeller Center. When those towers went up, I'd venture to guess that many people were appalled by how plain they were compared to the art deco and neoclassical skyscrapers virtually everywhere up to that point. ...and what is Rock Center to us today?

I love me a NY by Gehry or a Tower Verre here and again, but a whole skyline full of them would be way too busy and obnoxious. Have an open mind and think of things in different perspectives

ardecila · #**260** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 9:21 AM**

The Related towers would be far more compelling if they literally copied the curtain-wall designs from various Modernist boxes around town, so the end result looked like Lever House, Seagram, and Chase Manhattan stacked together (with slight tweaks to allow the different facade patterns to mesh).

At that point, it would be sheer Postmodernism, and definitely worthy of its prominent position.