SkyscraperCity Forum banner

NEW YORK | 30 Hudson Yards | 387m | 1270ft | 73 fl | Com

3M views 8K replies 861 participants last post by  NewYorkCity76 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Related Cos.
Architects Skidmore Owings & Merrill; Thomas Phifer & Partners; SHoP Architects and Diller Scofidio + Renfro; Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa; Handel Architects

Current design renderings (as of November 2012):

At night:
A nice new rendering published by MIR a couple of hours ago!

Illustration by MIR


Illustration by MIR

Large rendering



both pics by NYguy on pbase

renderings from https://www.visualhouse.co.uk/




D-Tower up close










IMG]http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/Content/dynamic/hudson-yards-nyc-east-yards-dv-mir-122012.jpg[/IMG]

Scale models:

Earlier renders:

nyguy on PBase



from the brochure http://www.related.com/HudsonYards/images/Hudson Yards Brochure.pdf










the bottom pics are clearly older renderings, but going by this, the mixed use tower is taller than the coach tower was before it's height reduction

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


Older renderings:




Extell Development Company
Architect Steven Holl Architects




Tishman Speyer Properties and Morgan Stanley
Architects Helmut Jahn and Peter Walker




Related Companies
Architects Kohn Pedersen Fox, Robert A.M. Stern, Arquitectonica
Financial Partner Goldman Sachs




Durst Organization and Vornado Realty Trust
Architects FXFowle and Pelli Clarke Pelli













[/I]


First design:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A platform primer:

 
See less See more
1 13
#107 ·
My pick is Brookfield - simple, but beautiful. No need for something crazy looking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChuckScraperMiami#1
#109 ·
Some have already been posted, but my review of the models from last week...

Now that I've finally gotten over to the models, I can say that overall my
views were accurate and have only changed slightly, with Related moving
closer to Vornado for second place. (With some shifting of bulidings, and
break up of the "valley", they could actually move into second).

I'll work my way from the bottom of the bunch, to the top.

The Extell proposal is just too not-like-New York, and those "sunslice" towers
just don't do it. But the triple tower, which I call the "collonade" is an interesting
idea which would be fine if built elsewhere. I kind of like it...:)



A closer look at Steven Holl's 10th Ave tower







The Tishman/Morgan proposal is a horrible one as well. The buildings were presented
as they are for a reason. Given the reaction New York had to the various early and
later WTC proposals, I can't believe that they would present this proposal with
the intentions of building something far more "grander". It's the most artificial
looking, even more so than Extell's. But it calls for about 10 million square feet
of space, so even if it does come with 3 msf pre-leased, that's 7 msf of space left,
more than most of the other proposals. The resentment will be strong against this one.

Still, its a little of the WTC meets Rockefeller Center meets Times Square.







There was a seperate, street level cut-out model which gave more details...which
brings me to the point of the High Line being preserved in all of the plans.
We can now get excited about that aspect again.













Didn't care for the Related model that much. But if they could somehow bridge the
northern portion with the sourthern portion of the site, it could probably work.
Still, seems like a wasted oppurtunity there.




Vornado chose to create their own version of the High Line down the center
of the site. Still, here's a look at the residential towers along 30th Street...




The tallest is nothing too spectacular




Neither is the rest of the site




However, as seen with some of the other Hudson Yards district developments, you
get the idea that it doesn't have to be...




The Girasole


 
#110 ·
And finally, here is my favorite of the bunch, Brookfield's. This one is the rare combination
of best site plan, and best skyscraper proposals. There were two models on hand.

First, the Manhattan model...




The ESB and NY Times...




Bonus shot of Brookfield's 9th Ave site plan...




From here, you get an idea of the developments proximity to Penn Station and its
related developments. There is no doubt in my mind that the same pedestrian
rush that you see from the 40's and 50's to Penn Station will be seen from here.
Still, the 7 line extension is badly needed to connect the west side with the rest of the city.







And here you see why this is the best plan for New York. It's the most natural
extension of the rest of the Hudson Yards district. In fact, any one who didn't know
better would find it hard to believe that the railyards were there in the first place.
I also love the way the cultural center ties the Hudson Boulevard Park together
with the High Line park.













I love the slender residential towers along 30th St and the High Line. The hottest
developments in the city are around the High Line, and I have no doubt these
towers would be as well.




The more skeletal view. Imagine walking along the High Line to a terminus of these towers
and looking up. A little Hong Kongish, but it would be fantastic. (This is my current desktop view)




One and Two Hudson Place









___________________________________________

Resized renderings:


Not your average Manhattan Plaza...




A good start on these towers...








 
#118 ·
I agree, Brookfield's is the most seductive...but because it incorporates every major high-rise cliché of our time, it looks just like something you'd find in the rest of the world, perhaps Kazakhstan or Shenzhen. The architects involved were of course some of the first to innovate these formal moves (twist, rounded, zig-zag, bridge, crystal) during their early years teaching and submitting competition entries, but at this point they are over-used tropes, and it's really too late for NYC to play catch-up. Besides, the way Brookfield slaps two condos right in the middle of the park negates the opportunity to have a sweeping (wind-swept?) green space come down from the north and then bend west to the water. Instead you have two parks, which is fairly generic.

Although it is kind of off-putting, Tishman Speyer's proposal is the most intelligent, to me. The towers split to preserve the view from NJ of the Empire State Building (which none of the other proposals do, not even Brookfield's, even though it seems to), there is a kind of brutal circle marking the point where the two parks meet, and the residential towers have an interesting cantilevered relationship to the Highline. If the tower membranes had been better articulated, this proposal would clearly be seen as the most urban, pity they weren't. Pity they didn't throw in some arbitrary curves to make it seem more "up-to-date" as well.
 
#119 · (Edited)
I agree, Brookfield's is the most seductive...but because it incorporates every major high-rise cliché of our time, it looks just like something you'd find in the rest of the world, perhaps Kazakhstan or Shenzhen. The architects involved were of course some of the first to innovate these formal moves (twist, rounded, zig-zag, bridge, crystal) during their early years teaching and submitting competition entries, but at this point they are over-used tropes, and it's really too late for NYC to play catch-up. Besides, the way Brookfield slaps two condos right in the middle of the park negates the opportunity to have a sweeping (wind-swept?) green space come down from the north and then bend west to the water. Instead you have two parks, which is fairly generic.

Although it is kind of off-putting, Tishman Speyer's proposal is the most intelligent, to me. The towers split to preserve the view from NJ of the Empire State Building (which none of the other proposals do, not even Brookfield's, even though it seems to), there is a kind of brutal circle marking the point where the two parks meet, and the residential towers have an interesting cantilevered relationship to the Highline. If the tower membranes had been better articulated, this proposal would clearly be seen as the most urban, pity they weren't. Pity they didn't throw in some arbitrary curves to make it seem more "up-to-date" as well.
View on the Empire State Building will be obscured only if you look directly across from NJ side. (Like directly across 33-34th street) So if you step aside a little bit - the whole problem is solved and you will have a row of buildings all the way from West side up to the 34 & 5th avenue with Empire State Building in the end.
As for Park - you should also see that another park which will extend all across Hells Kitchen at an 90 degree angle all the way up to the 42 street will be connected to this one here. So the amount of Green space is very large even with this building in the middle.



You can see on this picture that after 2 city clocks you have a building standing on top of the rail road yards - so park has to end there anyways - instead it turns left and continue all the way up to the 42 street.


16 & 17. Hudson Yards

 
#120 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top