HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    432 Park Avenue in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5641  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2014, 4:31 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
I'm really interesting in seeing the building as it appears with the windows in. I believe it will be more glassy in appearance than a lot of people probably think, due to the large size of the windows.
100% agree with you, this is going to be way more glassy than expected. Most of the glass isn't even in yet and I'm already shocked (in a good way.) From the earliest renderings we kind of thought this was going to be a concrete intensive building, that's turning out to be only partly true. Forget the white concrete!

I feel like this is undoubtedly going to be one of the best looking building in New York City when complete!

Last edited by Onn; Apr 8, 2014 at 4:43 PM.
     
     
  #5642  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2014, 4:59 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
The view north from the top of the Rock will look so different in year or so, especially after looking much the same for so many years. I'm looking forward to the next time I go up.
     
     
  #5643  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2014, 1:13 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
Pretty good pictures you've got there NYGuy.

You have been designated to go there again when the summer begins and repeat the session
I most certainly will.



http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...-new-york-city

Too Rich, Too Thin, Too Tall?





By Paul Goldberger
May 2014


Quote:
....It is easy to think of the super-tall, ultra-luxury towers as a story more about money than about design, and to a certain degree it is. But if the first two buildings, One57 and 432 Park Avenue, are any indication, the interiors, at least, are designed to an exacting standard, with extremely high ceilings and expansive rooms to go with the awesome views, as if the developers realized that at prices upwards of $8,000 a square foot they couldn’t get away with the mean little rooms and cheap finishes that they might peddle elsewhere. As Barnett said to me, “They’re getting something for their $40 or $50 million.” (Well, yes, you’d hope.) He added, “These people don’t want to get squeezed into a small box.” Both buildings have elegant bathrooms that are more in line with what you would expect to find in a custom, one-of-a-kind interior than a developer-supplied one. And both buildings have spectacular kitchens, which will in all likelihood prove once again the maxim that in New York the better equipped an apartment kitchen is, the less cooking goes on within it.

Despite the garishness of One57’s exterior, I’m not ready to write off the entire super-thin, super-tall building type as incompatible with serious architecture.

Viñoly’s 432 Park, on the outside, is as sophisticated as One57 is glitzy. Its façade is a flat, minimalist grid of smoothly finished concrete. As one looks at the building it’s hard not to think of Tadao Ando, the Japanese architect who is famous for making concrete feel more sensual and luxurious than marble. To some people, concrete is still concrete, no matter how refined its finish, so you have to give Macklowe some credit for not pandering to the lowest common denominator of moneyed taste.

Macklowe’s own apartment, in the Plaza, was designed by the late Charles Gwathmey, who did a great deal to shape the developer’s taste and gave him an obsession for detail that is more characteristic of an architect than a profit-driven builder. In the case of 432 Park, Macklowe seems not to have cut any corners; his philosophy has been to spend as much as it takes and figure he’ll get it back by charging sky-high prices, like the $74.5 million he is asking for the full-floor apartment on the 87th floor, or the $30.75 million he wants for a three-bedroom apartment down on the 64th floor.

The tower is an essay in pure geometric form: it is a perfect square in plan, and rises straight up, without a single setback; all four façades are identical, made up of a grid of windows, every one of which is roughly 10 feet square. No windows are bigger, and no windows are smaller. If the windows didn’t have glass in them, the whole building would look like one of Sol LeWitt’s tower sculptures from the 1980s.


Macklowe is trying to sell restraint and opulence at the same time, which is not an easy task. To do it, he revved up a marketing campaign that is even more elaborate than the One57 effort, with a huge sales office in the General Motors Building that, like the one for One57, replicates finishes, kitchens, and bathrooms of the apartments, which were designed by Deborah Berke, not Viñoly. There is also a hardcover book, a special magazine, and a Web site (with text in English, Russian, Portuguese, Chinese, French, and Italian) that allows you to see virtual images of finished apartments and photographs of the actual views from five selected heights. The climactic moment in the sales center comes when you see the mood-setting film, produced by the design agency dBox, that shows images of luxury—think British country houses, private jets—that morph into images of 432 Park, all to the background music of Mama Cass singing “Dream a Little Dream of Me.” Never has austerity seemed so alluringly posh, not to say decadent.

If the size of the 432 Park Avenue tower, which replaces the old Drake Hotel, seems out of scale with its surroundings—which it is—it’s worth noting that it’s not the first residential building in the neighborhood to have that problem. Diagonally across the street is the building that might be considered the true first super-tall, super-thin residential tower, the Ritz Tower. It was built in 1925 to the designs of Emery Roth and Carrere & Hastings, and it rose 41 stories to 541 feet, a height that seemed every bit as outrageous in the 1920s as 1,396 feet does now. Ayn Rand was almost surely referring to the ornate Ritz Tower in The Fountainhead when she wrote disdainfully of “a Renaissance palace made of rubber and stretched to the height of forty stories.”

Two other new towers in the 57th Street area have to be considered as architectural efforts at least as serious as 432 Park. The first, 53 West 53rd Street, the tapered tower beside the Museum of Modern Art, was designed by Jean Nouvel several years ago for the Hines development firm but has been delayed since 2009. The tallest tower that is not on a wide street or avenue, it has gained some notoriety because of MoMA’s plans to expand into its lower floors and in the process demolish a small architectural gem, the former American Folk Art Museum, built in 2001.

And then there is 111 West 57th Street, designed by the architectural firm SHoP, which will be the thinnest tower of all, and quite possibly the most elegant: 1,397 feet, balanced on a base only 60 feet wide. The builders of 111 West 57th are Kevin Maloney of Property Markets Group and Michael Stern, the head of JDS Development Group.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“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.
     
     
  #5644  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2014, 1:22 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,932
May as well share this graphic here...


http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...-new-york-city


__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“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.
     
     
  #5645  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 12:56 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,932
Creeping up behind the MetLife...


NewYorkitecture

__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“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.
     
     
  #5646  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 2:18 AM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,519
A core jump today up to apparent level 57 or 883' 6''
     
     
  #5647  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 1:51 PM
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,657
^Man, this thing is flying skyward. I don't even remember it being in the 700's!
     
     
  #5648  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 9:33 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
^Man, this thing is flying skyward. I don't even remember it being in the 700's!
Yeah, it really won't be long before it overtakes One57.


Enlarged this pic...

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...-new-york-city


__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“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.
     
     
  #5649  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 10:29 PM
Perklol's Avatar
Perklol Perklol is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post

My new cover photo on myspace
     
     
  #5650  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 11:41 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,767
today was the first time i really noticed this tower construction without having to look for it on the bus going across the 181st washington bridge between washington heights and the bronx. just wanted to say that because that view is pretty far north!
     
     
  #5651  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 11:42 PM
arkitekte's Avatar
arkitekte arkitekte is offline
Preds/Titans/Grizz
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong View Post
My new cover photo on myspace
Myspace? Damn.
__________________
I built it ground up. You bought it renovated.
     
     
  #5652  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 12:01 AM
forj's Avatar
forj forj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 312
About to dominate the midtown skyline

     
     
  #5653  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 8:52 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Not sure if already posted

57th Street


Park Avenue

Apparently only the first two floors are retail along Park with the space above housing mechanicals
     
     
  #5654  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 6:16 PM
M. Incandenza M. Incandenza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas/New York
Posts: 91
From that Goldberger article that NYGuy posted on 4/9:

Quote:
Viñoly’s 432 Park, on the outside, is as sophisticated as One57 is glitzy. Its façade is a flat, minimalist grid of smoothly finished concrete. As one looks at the building it’s hard not to think of Tadao Ando, the Japanese architect who is famous for making concrete feel more sensual and luxurious than marble. To some people, concrete is still concrete, no matter how refined its finish, so you have to give Macklowe some credit for not pandering to the lowest common denominator of moneyed taste.
The use of the term 'sophisticated' is telling. What is that supposed to mean? The concepts behind its design are basically (in fact, almost verbatim) what guys like Corbusier and Ozenfant were talking about in the 1920s - 90 years ago. So 'sophisticated' can't mean new or original. I think there is an elitism lurking here - the design does basically nothing to appeal to pedestrians, or any others who aren't living in one of its multi-million dollar pads. Its the architectural equivalent of the cocktail party snoot who doesn't deign to express human warmth. That snoot, of course, also thinks of himself as sophisticated...

And why is One57 (by implication) unsophisticated? Because it has a sense of energy, or of play, even? God forbid...

(By the way, about this talk of basing the building design on "the grid"... I was at a talk recently by an expert on ornament, and he made the point that the New York street grid would be absolutely oppressive in its rectilinearity and monotony - except for all the wonderful ornamentation and traditional architectural features (or, in a few cases, contemporary features) - the non-griddedness, in other words - that make the Manhattan street experience so dynamic and endlessly fascinating. On the other hand, if all the buildings recapitulated the pattern of the grid, imagine how unpleasant that would be.)
     
     
  #5655  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 8:28 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
Something being sophisticated does not necessarily mean it is elitist. Sophisticated often refers to an elegant complexity and in this case I read it as referring to the complexity of the design language of 432 park. Minimalism is a bit deceptive in this regard because it looks very simple, but if you have ever designed anything minimalistic you may know that it is actually quite difficult because it makes it very obvious when one element is just slightly off. To do minimalism well requires quite a bit of thought. As for what this tower does for pedestrians you make it sound as if the only buildings that are worth looking at have ornamentation which I would wholeheartedly disagree with. A whole city of any one style would be oppressive ornamentation or not.
     
     
  #5656  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 9:57 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
Something being sophisticated does not necessarily mean it is elitist. Sophisticated often refers to an elegant complexity and in this case I read it as referring to the complexity of the design language of 432 park. Minimalism is a bit deceptive in this regard because it looks very simple, but if you have ever designed anything minimalistic you may know that it is actually quite difficult because it makes it very obvious when one element is just slightly off. To do minimalism well requires quite a bit of thought. As for what this tower does for pedestrians you make it sound as if the only buildings that are worth looking at have ornamentation which I would wholeheartedly disagree with. A whole city of any one style would be oppressive ornamentation or not.
I agree with a lot of what you say. However, although a city like Paris is not all one style, a lot of it is very similar in style (many streets all one style) which actually is part of its popular appeal as a beautiful city I think and not at all oppressive. I bet most would prefer a city comprised entirely of the same styled ornamented buildings over a city composed wholly of modernist minimalist structures. A city full of ornamented buildings, even if most differing very little from each other, would be acclaimed most likely as beautiful due to the fact that most world cities are exactly the opposite (a mixture of multiple styles) and ornamented buildings are rather rare and prized in this age of glass and steel. Maybe some would consider it boring, but I doubt many would consider it 'oppressive'. I mean, when most world cities are modernist/mish-mash in style and have very little aesthetic appeal to the average person who doesn't appreciate minimalism, i can guarantee that most people would over the moon to visit such an 'oppressive' town and it wold probably be a hit in the tourism market.

Last edited by aquablue; Apr 13, 2014 at 10:16 PM.
     
     
  #5657  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 10:03 PM
M. Incandenza M. Incandenza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas/New York
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
Something being sophisticated does not necessarily mean it is elitist. Sophisticated often refers to an elegant complexity and in this case I read it as referring to the complexity of the design language of 432 park.
I agree in principle, but I don't see how the design language of 432 Park is in any way complex; Vinoly has gone out of his way to talk up the geometrical "purity" of the design, by which he evidently just means its simplicity.

Quote:
Minimalism is a bit deceptive in this regard because it looks very simple, but if you have ever designed anything minimalistic you may know that it is actually quite difficult because it makes it very obvious when one element is just slightly off. To do minimalism well requires quite a bit of thought.
I believe that. Perhaps it would take quite a bit of thought to produce a really perfect concrete cube. That wouldn't make it a good design, though.

Quote:
As for what this tower does for pedestrians you make it sound as if the only buildings that are worth looking at have ornamentation which I would wholeheartedly disagree with. A whole city of any one style would be oppressive ornamentation or not.
Well, what I wrote was "all the wonderful ornamentation and traditional architectural features (or, in a few cases, contemporary features)." The phrasing should make it clear that I'm not just talking about ornamentation. And by "traditional styles," I include the full eclectic mix that characterizes the city's architecture from its oldest buildings to the styles that were popular in the first few decades of the 20th Century. I would also include early modernist styles, especially art deco, that employed traditional architectural principles in new ways. I also went out of my way to mention contemporary designs, the best of which are beautiful and engaging, though they tend to be of the structural expressionist sort - in other words, lacking in ornamentation.

I'm actually doing the inverse of saying we should only have one style of architecture in NYC - I'm singling out one (historically idiosyncratic) style that I wish we didn't have: namely, high modernism. I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but I hope it's at least clear that I'm not arguing for the homogenization of architectural styles. In fact, it's the homogeneity of high modernism that I most object to.
     
     
  #5658  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 11:41 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Incandenza View Post
the design does basically nothing to appeal to pedestrians, or any others who aren't living in one of its multi-million dollar pads.
From the perspective of the buyer, there is value in being inconspicuous. From the perspective of the passerby, it's just another building that happens to be particularly tall. I'd certainly find the exteriors' lack of flamboyancy to be an attractive feature of the property if I were a prospective buyer.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
     
     
  #5659  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 12:04 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
^I certainly don't mean to say that lots of thought defines "Good design". I was simply pointing out that a seemingly simple design is not always as simple as it appears. And good minimalist design requires a lot of subtle thought and intention. Each design choice that is made usually results in new problems like in the case of 432 I imagine abandoning a crown and podium especially at this hieght results in different challenges in terms of visual balance for example. When you get these things slightly wrong it goes really wrong in minimalism... Mistakes show up like where's Waldo on a blank canvas. If say the windows were slieghtly smaller or the mechanical floors were in sleightly different places it could make the design not work. I agree with you in some respect that there is a lot of high modernist crap buildings out there but this building I don't think is one of them. I appreciate the subtle attention to detail that minimalism requires to be done well.
     
     
  #5660  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 2:27 AM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,519
The perimeter is on window level 55 or 852' 6'' The core is on window level 57 or 883'
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.