daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 27th, 2014, 11:38 AM   #3901
AltiusAltiusAltius
Member
 
AltiusAltiusAltius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,352
Likes (Received): 53

**** Art Students League NIMBYS
__________________
"A City is the greatest work of art possible"
Lloyd Rees
AltiusAltiusAltius no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 27th, 2014, 03:37 PM   #3902
msquaredb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 354

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
That looks like the non-cantilevered version. It's beautiful.

Anyway, for those dismayed by the "current design," consider the difference between the non-cantilevered model in Barnett's office and the non-cantilevered graphic that was disseminated in connection with the ASL issue. As my source has stated, a massing model of the cantilevered version is all that's been disseminated thus far.
Agreed. The final design for the cantilevered version could very well look like that beautiful model for the non-cantilevered version. Really, there is no reason to think that it wouldn't. Why would the developers want a fundamentally different design for the two options?
msquaredb está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 05:22 PM   #3903
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

I think this is the earlier version of the tower, the grey model.







Now I'm speculating there but the bigger model seems to be a bit twisty in the bottom and more bottom heavy. You could reasonably assume that they added the cantilever to this model, which would be a much nicer touch than what we've seen so far. Better yet, this is the version that was approved by DOB.


Garnett doesn't have 2 of the same models on display in his office for no reason. You might very well be right RW, we might get a much better design after all. But again I'm speculating here.

Last edited by Ghostface79; February 27th, 2014 at 05:38 PM.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 05:41 PM   #3904
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Yea that does not look like a Portzamparc design. Definitely something AS+GG would do. At least I hope so.
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)

Last edited by Vertical_Gotham; February 27th, 2014 at 06:11 PM.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 07:12 PM   #3905
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,517
Likes (Received): 22517

the base reminds me of what SHoP had planned for this site awhile back

__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 07:21 PM   #3906
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

That's awesome! (Not the one above that one's awful.) And because it's awesome I'm gonna guess that's not what we're getting
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 08:55 PM   #3907
iamtheSTIG
Registered User
 
iamtheSTIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham - The city of Robin Hood
Posts: 4,229
Likes (Received): 4488

Something like this could be a possibility...



or



(excuse the bad editing)
__________________
Aspiring property developer with major ambitions

Check out my Instagram

Nottingham Interactive Development Map

MarshallKnight, Vertical_Gotham liked this post
iamtheSTIG está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 09:20 PM   #3908
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

So basically a ~1500 foot tall letter opener
__________________

msquaredb, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 05:04 AM   #3909
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Ugh, I'm not a fan of that curved base. That wouldn't look good in reality, imo.

btw, Why was the height increased back to the 1550ft. figure? Was there any news to this effect?
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 06:16 AM   #3910
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,100
Likes (Received): 1629

Looks like a cheese knife.
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 05:59 PM   #3911
(:
Registered User
 
(:'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 318
Likes (Received): 229

Anyone know when that episode was filmed? It could be an older design but still we could get an idea of what will rise here from that model.
(: no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 06:37 PM   #3912
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

@iamtheSTIG that seems hardly technically/economically feasible to me. Especially the second option. I guess you did this to transfer air rights to the top. It's just a hunch but that "leg" looks definitely too narrow for such a structure.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 06:48 PM   #3913
iamtheSTIG
Registered User
 
iamtheSTIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham - The city of Robin Hood
Posts: 4,229
Likes (Received): 4488

I may have pushed the building slightly too far, just ignore the size of the cantilever I put, it was just for the overall design of giving the tapered design a cantilever
__________________
Aspiring property developer with major ambitions

Check out my Instagram

Nottingham Interactive Development Map
iamtheSTIG está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 07:47 PM   #3914
scalziand
Naugatuckian
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Posts: 455
Likes (Received): 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by (: View Post
Anyone know when that episode was filmed? It could be an older design but still we could get an idea of what will rise here from that model.
It was filmed April-May 2013, nearly a year ago, so a lot could have changed with the design.
scalziand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 08:27 PM   #3915
LouDagreat
High in the sky
 
LouDagreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 150

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post




I think they are referring to that huge massing model in the left of both pics? I would really like that for the Nordstrom.
If that massing is what's being built...awesome! hopefuly more renders comes of that design.
LouDagreat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 08:55 PM   #3916
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouDagreat View Post
If that massing is what's being built...awesome! hopefuly more renders comes of that design.
would be nice but highly unlikely
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 10:23 PM   #3917
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Of Golden Geese and Leaden Critics

Demonizing the wealthy might feel good, but it hurts New York

http://observer.com/2014/02/of-golde...eaden-critics/

Quote:
New York City has worked hard to present an appealing and welcoming image to the rest of the world, attracting a record number of visitors who spend money here and invest in city real estate. They create thousands of jobs and over $50 billion in economic activity. Tourism, hotels and construction are some of the largest economic and tax generators for our city.

But some critics question the civic value of constructing super-luxury buildings, especially tall ones with views of Central Park, such as those that my company is building on Manhattan’s West 57th Street. Some suggest that we saddle purchasers of such apartments with extra taxation, even though they make few demands on the public services their taxes help underwrite.

Others intentionally ignore the economic benefits and jobs that development provides, seeking to add new layers of regulation in order to stop large-scale construction that provide high-quality jobs both during the building phase and after.

A New York Times business columnist recently wrote that “ultra-wealthy nonresidents who own property in New York City certainly make a ripe target for potential revenue.” A Times architecture critic, stepping far beyond his area of expertise, suggested “the mayor could lobby to raise taxes on those out of town plutocrats buying zillion dollar aeries.”

Do we want to send a message to wealthy pied-a-terre buyers, both American and international, that they are a ripe target and New Yorkers are going to charge them more for the privilege of investing in our city? If we subject foreigners to added taxation for owning a residence in New York City, it’s just common sense that many fewer will buy. If we drive away a pool of ready buyers at luxury prices, some of these buildings will not get built at all.

We need a balanced approach if we don’t want to injure—or kill—the goose that lays the golden egg.

To assemble a large site along with unused air rights, enabling a large building, takes many years and very substantial sums of risk capital. It took Extell 10 years to assemble the site for One57-a mixed-use building with a Park Hyatt hotel at its base—and eight years for the Nordstrom tower a block to the west. Tall buildings cost more to build and take longer, exposing the projects to significant risk, such as the market crash of 2008.

New construction is the lifeblood of major cities, providing dynamic renewal and serving as a major economic engine and revenue generator for city and state coffers. Over the next 20 years, One57 will generate over $1 billion in real estate, sales, hotel occupancy and other taxes, according to planning documents we prepared for city review. The Nordstrom tower, which will house the first new department store to open in Manhattan in over 40 years, will contribute more than $2 billion in tax revenue.

Critics have a right not to like the design of One57, a sinuous sculpture of cascading ribbons of glass on its south facade and a Klimt-like pixilation of glass that changes color and transparency as the sun progresses on its east and west facades. They can inveigh against the Nordstrom building, even though most criticism is based on premature and incomplete drawings and faulty information.

But they cross the line with throwaway advice to Art Students League members to vote against their future and turn down the tens of millions of dollars my company has offered for the right to build a cantilever on the Nordstrom tower that would begin more than 200 feet above the roof of the League building. That plan was approved by the city’s Landmarks and Preservation Commission, and welcomed by the art league’s leaders. The same Times architectural critic, however, expressed the hope that “cranky artists might still succeed where Landmarks failed, and shelve the cantilever. Here’s hoping they do.”

What possible purpose, other than spite, would this advice serve? The building will still be built, just as tall, but it would hurt Nordstrom and Extell needlessly, affecting the expanded floor plate essential for modern department stores and providing more attractive floor plans for the apartments above.

More importantly, it would hurt the Art Students League, an institution that for over 100 years has nurtured American artists. The League plans to invest the proceeds of Extell’s payment for the cantilever permission to renovate and expand its landmarked building, and add programs and scholarships to serve its members. Who will replace that money? Advising the Art Students League to reject a plan that benefits them is like the armchair general, safe behind the lines, declaring his army will fight to the last man.

A few blocks from my Queens home live some of the best structural concrete workers in the world. They earn an average union wage over $100,000 a year. The thousands of person-years of union jobs generated by construction of these buildings, as well as the hundreds of permanent jobs at the Park Hyatt and Nordstrom, provide meaningful employment to middle class New Yorkers. Jeopardizing the ability to build buildings like these also jeopardizes their livelihood.

Disregarding the jobs and other benefits that development brings our city is a brand of elitism that may be fine in the rarefied circles of architectural critics, but has no place in the multidimensional world of public and social policy.

Last week, the members of the Art Student League voted to approve the cantilever transaction, by a vote of over 1,300 to 200. Which just goes to show that the artists may be cranky- but they are not stupid.

- By Gary Barnett, President and founder of Extell Development Company
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 11:00 PM   #3918
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

I mean, Gary's right on pretty much every point. But man, could he have been more of a dick about the way he worded that letter?
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 11:43 PM   #3919
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
I mean, Gary's right on pretty much every point. But man, could he have been more of a dick about the way he worded that letter?
"Dicks" often make the best visionaries... they get things done. Not saying they're right , but you have to sometimes be an ass to get things accomplished or they won't get done, or watered down so much it would be more sensible to walk away. Look at all the naysayers... if too accommodating or too fearful to stand up to them few if any of society's great achievements could get done. I watched a great PBS documentary on the rise and fall of Penn Station.... as bad as it is the Pennsylvania Railroad Company couldn't be dissuaded from demolishing their great work the results of the engineering...the tunnels and the tracks still exist to this day. The station's creation necessitated the removal and razing of hundreds of tenements and shops...imagine the outcry of those naysayers denouncing the Penn Station as a white elephant designed to serve the rich but also dependent on technologies to burrow under the Hudson and East Rivers that seemed nothing short of insanity?

Might sound like he's being a bit of a jerk but like you even said, it is a basically true thing Barnett pointed out.

The one thing that heartened me a bit was his taking on those who have attacked the design of the building based on preliminary reports and drawings. Maybe, just maybe Extell will bring forth a jewel... because I'd hate to defend the tower as it has appeared that has so many frustrated and furious. And I'd hate that Barnett dismissed concerns if they were right all along. I am giving him and Extell the benefit of the doubt here but I'm wary to get my hopes up.
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2014, 12:59 AM   #3920
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Quote:
They can inveigh against the Nordstrom building, even though most criticism is based on premature and incomplete drawings and faulty information.
Yeah well, whose fault is that Gary? This project has been a PR desaster from the beginning!
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
217 west 57th street, 225 west 57th street, central park south, cps, extell, new york, nordstrom tower, nyc, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu