NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,398) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 20

BrBTowers · #**381** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 5:41 PM**

This is what I'm calling the Apple-esque cube. It reminds me of apple's glass cube they have.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/a...t/CIMG0809.jpg

JayPro · #**382** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 8:00 PM**

IT could be interesting if--basing my 'druthers on the render--the glass cube could be integrated with that outer grid.
Rob said that certain elements of his model (which I assume the above rendering is based on) are missing, tho.
Perhaps what is ultimately planned will make the cube in and of itself look less "bump-on-a-loggy".

I'm sure that Sr. Viñoly's inclusion in this whole process will address matters to everyone's satisfaction.

RobertWalpole · #**383** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 8:09 PM**

As noted, the missing element will make this building far more tolerable. That being said, but for the height, it will not be what we all hoped for. A child could have drafted the final product in a matter of minutes with no creativity whatsoever.

My goal here has been simply to temper people's expectations. I had hoped for a landmark which is not forthcoming.

Dale · #**384** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

As noted, the missing element will make this building far more tolerable. That being said, but for the height, it will not be what we all hoped for. A child could have drafted the final product in a matter of minutes with no creativity whatsoever.

My goal here has been simply to temper people's expectations. I had hoped for a landmark which is not forthcoming.

You're probably taking on too much responsibility. Besides, we're all grownups and this can't be anywhere near the disappointment of Will and Grace running so many seasons.

Dac150 · #**385** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

My goal here has been simply to temper people's expectations. I had hoped for a landmark which is not forthcoming.

That can be accomplished though in less of a way than you have. Your view is understood; allow others to have theirs when the official design is released.

RobertWalpole · #**386** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 8:43 PM**

I provided a service by letting people not get their hopes up for a Torre Verre. When I get inside information in the future, I'll keep it to myself if people prefer.

Dac150 · #**387** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I provided a service by letting people not get their hopes up for a Torre Verre. When I get inside information in the future, I'll keep it to myself if people prefer.

There’s a difference between providing information and overkill. Your information, if reputable, is greatly appreciated. The point is, better discretion can be used.

RobertWalpole · #**388** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 9:07 PM**

I diasgree. People raised points about what they'd like to see (e.g., rounded corners, a crown, etc.) I'd like to see that too, but I don't want them getting let down because I know it's not happening. I was extremely disappointed by this project.

Dac150 · #**389** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I diasgree. People raised points about what they'd like to see (e.g., rounded corners, a crown, etc.) I'd like to see that too, but I don't want them getting let down because I know it's not happening. I was extremely disappointed by this project.

Understood; that being said I believe people here are intelligent enough to comprehend that in one or two posts. Page after page after page of the same monotonous material isn’t constructive. That's my point.

yankeesfan1000 · #**390** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 9:21 PM**

Don't kill the messenger. Inside info is always appreciated RW, whether it's good or bad.

Boxes are all about details, and we don't have any details at all really. So while I would've loved some twisty, 1300 foot version of Bishopgate in London, or something, let's hold out. At the very very least, even if this is just merely a thinner, taller version of Trump World Tower, a building of this height, this thin, will be just incredibly impressive.

JayPro · #**391** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 10:23 PM**

But that's just it!

This is supposed to be in an off-the-charts in-demand area where moderately subdued architecture is the norm. That said, Viñoly was chosen as the architect, as we've all heard about a billion times.
That said, then why would, could or should a man who's been cited--both here and in other posts--as one of the greatest in the world at what he does...especially at a prime address like this...have cause to let us down??

A box it may turn out to be; but given the designer's proven reputation, I think some of us will be quite fascinated with what he can do with it.

Romans 5:5, if you care to read.....

Loqy Lion · #**392** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 11:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

As noted, the missing element will make this building far more tolerable. That being said, but for the height, it will not be what we all hoped for. A child could have drafted the final product in a matter of minutes with no creativity whatsoever.

My goal here has been simply to temper people's expectations. I had hoped for a landmark which is not forthcoming.

I'm tellin' ya, R-Dub, a great facade at 1,400 feet will be awesome.

RobertWalpole · #**393** Posted: **Aug 22, 2011, 11:42 PM**

There's a surprise that's better than a good facade.

Loqy Lion · #**394** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 12:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

There's a surprise that's better than a good facade.

Here we go again . . .

Zapatan · #**395** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 8:35 AM**

What on earth is everyone so upset about? If that thing gets built that would be AWESOME!! It's like having one of the twin towers back next to central park... I don't care if it's a box, I like boxes sometimes, especially when they're 1300+ feet tall.

Whether it's a massing model or not doesn't that mean that this thing will be in the 400m range no matter what?

Zapatan · #**396** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 8:42 AM**

Edit: that thing looks more like 1500 feet tall than 1300

PS. look at all the other supertalls that are boxes, Sears, old WTC, AON plus non supertalls like TWT etc.

I would LOVE to see this building built.

In short: I'm stunned to see people upset over a 450m building in NYC, there are enough spires on the skyline, now let's have a few flat tops!

RobertWalpole · #**397** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 11:48 AM**

It's nearly 1400. However, that's a likely height, but not a final one. An equally lame proposal (i.e., an untapered, flat-topped box with no setbacks) in the 900 foot range is also possible. That proposal incorporates a boutique office component.

NYguy · #**398** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I provided a service by letting people not get their hopes up for a Torre Verre. When I get inside information in the future, I'll keep it to myself if people prefer.

And why would people ever get their hopes up?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

People are going to be VERY PLEASANTLY SURPRISED soon. I repeat, reiterate and underscore VERY!!!

Couldn't be for that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The design will be awesome.

Nor that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Something great will rise here!

Not buying that either...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I guess that CIM seeks to steal the thunder from Extell, and from what I hear, 440 Park will be a dramatically better building that One57.

Nothing too exciting there.

But I do believe you have learned a lesson here, and hopefully others have as well. And it is probably best that you keep inside information to yourself, especially if you are not certain that it is accurate.

I believe that if this tower gets built (along with others), it will be a strong signal for the state of affairs in the city, especially at this time.

RobertWalpole · #**399** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

But I do believe you have learned a lesson here...,

I didn't learn any lesson, nor do I need to.

I had very specific information about the likely height early on which was subsequently reported by newspapers, including the WSJ. That information led any reasonable person to surmise that an iconic design would follow if the developer was committed to an iconic height.

I subsequently received very specific information about the design and wanted to let people know about it so that they were not let down, as I was.

If people are dissatisfied with my service, I'll keep my information to myself in the future.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**400** Posted: **Aug 23, 2011, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I didn't learn any lesson, nor do I need to.

I had very specific information about the likely height early on which was subsequently reported by newspapers, including the WSJ. That information led any reasonable person to surmise that an iconic design would follow if the developer was committed to an iconic height.

I subsequently received very specific information about the design and wanted to let people know about it so that they were not let down, as I was.

If people are dissatisfied with my service, I'll keep my information to myself in the future.

Please dont keep it to yourself, you input is amongst the greatest in the NYC threads. You said what you knew and thats all that can be asked.