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

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Ultimately, whether it's 1424 or 1550 feet in height, we're still getting a very tall tower. That being said, if we are spending energy hoping for one outcome or another, I think we should all be wishing for a tower of the caliber of 111w 57th, and not what we have seen in renderings for 225w 57th...

Think about how tall 432 Park is, and know that this will be slightly taller. Either way, anytime a 400m+ becomes a reality, I'm super happy. 111w 57th is probally the best design being proposed in the whole city, next to 99 Church St. and Hudson Yards North Tower IMO.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Ultimately, whether it's 1424 or 1550 feet in height, we're still getting a very tall tower. That being said, if we are spending energy hoping for one outcome or another, I think we should all be wishing for a tower of the caliber of 111w 57th, and not what we have seen in renderings for 225w 57th...

While I love 111 I hope this will be a little more imposing and less skinny up top which I think it will be. Nothing wrong with skinny buildings but we need some variety

[NYguy]

April 6, 2014


Edge of the abyss.....

[NYguy]

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




The construction site of the new Extell tower, on 57th Street between Broadway and Seventh Avenue.
The building will be cantilevered over its neighbor, the Art Students League, built in 1892, at right.

[a very long weekend]

man, those site placements are just phoned in.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

man, those site placements are just phoned in.

Not really. The only one out of place is 220 CPS. It wouldn't be visible from that angle, so they just put in in a place where it would.

[King DenCity]

Now we just need one in between Steinway and 432 park.

[McSky]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not really. The only one out of place is 220 CPS. It wouldn't be visible from that angle, so they just put in in a place where it would.

Steinway is also out of place. It should be moved to the north, into the center of the block. They have the tower where the glass atrium will be built.

The small retail extension of 432 Park is out of place. It should be on the corner of Park and 56th.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by King DenCity

Now we just need one in between Steinway and 432 park.

There are like a half-dozen possibilities between those two sites, so I don't don't doubt we'll get at least one supertall located between those two towers.

57th between 5th and 6th, especially is key, with multiple assemblages.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by McSky

Steinway is also out of place. It should be moved to the north, into the center of the block. They have the tower where the glass atrium will be built.

The small retail extension of 432 Park is out of place. It should be on the corner of Park and 56th.

Steinway isn't out of place at all. It isn't going to be in the center of the bock.

As far as 432 Park goes, your problem is with the render, not location. But in case it isn't obvious from 520, those drawings aren't meant to be 100%.

But I agree with Crawford. A height of 1,397 ft would be great for that tower. It was exciting enough when it jumped up to a potential 900 footer, and has only gone up since then. But will Barnett feel any heat from it? Don't know.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Steinway isn't out of place at all. It isn't going to be in the center of the bock.

I think the point was that the diagram shows the tower actually on 57th st, when in reality the tower will be mid-block (in the courtyard) with only the glass atrium on 57th.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by gttx

I think the point was that the diagram shows the tower actually on 57th st, when in reality the tower will be mid-block (in the courtyard) with only the glass atrium on 57th.

Well, that would be a ridiculous point to make. It's not a life-scaled depiction of the towers, it's a marker to show where the towers are, and that's the location that it's in. It wouldn't change a bit if it was pushed back a little from the street.

[gttx]

It would have been cool if they ghosted all the other nearby buildings in, so you could get a sense of the scale. Right now they don't look absurdly tall.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

But I agree with Crawford. A height of 1,397 ft would be great for that tower. It was exciting enough when it jumped up to a potential 900 footer, and has only gone up since then. But will Barnett feel any heat from it? Don't know.

I remember Barnett originally was so adamant about building a 1500+ building to the roof and without "spires or crowns" as he said himself. Did he just stop caring?

Hopefully 225 won't end up any shorter which I doubt it will, and while it would be taller than Steinway at about ~1430 feet it would be hardly noticeable. 1500' isn't really a whole lot taller than 1397' either but at least it's a visible difference.

[McSky]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Steinway isn't out of place at all. It isn't going to be in the center of the bock.

As far as 432 Park goes, your problem is with the render, not location.

My, my. Someone can't accept correction. As I stated, Steinway tower is in the center of the block:






As far as 432 Park is concerned, “problem is with the render, not location”? What do you think we’re talking about? The small retail component on the corner of 56th and Park is way out of place in the render.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by McSky

My, my. Someone can't accept correction. As I stated, Steinway tower is in the center of the block:

I know what you said, and my point is it's ridiculous. If you look at that map, and what you get from it is that the Steinway tower isn't in the "middle" of the site it will rise above, then you've got more problems than the render. It should be readily apparent to you that it isn't an exact scale mockup. Or did you think all of the towers would really be blue as well? The map is a marker, nothing more. And an excellent one.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I remember Barnett originally was so adamant about building a 1500+ building to the roof and without "spires or crowns" as he said himself. Did he just stop caring?

Barnett has always said it's more about the design than the height. If for whatever reason he thinks it works better at the lower height, he'll go with that.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I know what you said, and my point is it's ridiculous. If you look at that map, and what you get from it is that the Steinway tower isn't in the "middle" of the site it will rise above, then you've got more problems than the render. It should be readily apparent to you that it isn't an exact scale mockup. Or did you think all of the towers would really be blue as well? The map is a marker, nothing more. And an excellent one.





Barnett has always said it's more about the design than the height. If for whatever reason he thinks it works better at the lower height, he'll go with that.

Wait, is the current design for this tower the final one or not?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

Wait, is the current design for this tower the final one or not?

I don't believe so.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

Wait, is the current design for this tower the final one or not?

Until you hear otherwise, go with the tower of 1,400 + feet. If it goes above 1,500 ft, be pleasantly surprised.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Until you hear otherwise, go with the tower of 1,400 + feet. If it goes above 1,500 ft, be pleasantly surprised.

As you said yourself he was going to add some extra square feet to the penthouse though right?

I guess we're splitting hairs but I personally would like something to at least break Sears Tower and end up in the higher 1400's. Seriously it's been the highest roof for 40 years.