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 April 9th, 2010, 06:30 AM   #841
boss-ton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 365
Likes (Received): 178

Quote:
Originally Posted by rencharles View Post
Thanks for the reply. I do not understand about the rights of air. Even more I do not understand much spoken here in the forum, why not live in the U.S. (And do not speak much English).
I just think that New York could have more buildings with a height incredible. While in many places around the world like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai, are blew at the time, NY is on the same height in most buildings.

The initial project provided 320 m high, and now how will it be?
The thing is that new yorkers along with the rest of the world know that if they wanted to they could have the absolute tallest, nicest, most outrageous skyscrapers in the world here. All of these other places need to build something like that just to get a name for themselves, while new york has been putting up supertalls since the 1930s. Theres not much more to prove and now it becomes a safety concern the higher you go the longer it takes to climb to put out a fire. Many buildings in new york that are short and fat and only 45 stories actually have more square footage than the burj dubai. It definately will be nice for new york to have a lot more supertalls around the 1100 foot range go up, and that is happeneing, but I think that the empire state building needs to be respected and nothing other than the new 1wtc should be built taller. I dont see new york ever having the worlds tallest building again and im happy about this because we had the esb all this time, and something taller than the burj would just stick out like a sore thumb. As someone from Boston I have no problem saying NYC will always be on top, end of story.
boss-ton no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 10th, 2010, 08:55 PM   #842
rencharles
We will never forget
 
rencharles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 93

Very good man. Thanks for the reply. Sure, I understand your idea. I just thought it could have more big buildings, instead of just one (eg the Freedom Tower). But I agree with you that New York has nothing to prove to the world, because New York is already the best, and most of all. But it's always good to know views of other people.

The initial project provided 320 m high, and now how will it be?
rencharles no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 09:50 PM   #843
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

They were fishing when they planed to have it as tall as ESB. If they planed to have for 1046 feet, it would have got cut down. I mean 800 900 feet is nice but it doesn't standout.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 10:50 PM   #844
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsc View Post
They were fishing when they planed to have it as tall as ESB. If they planed to have for 1046 feet, it would have got cut down. I mean 800 900 feet is nice but it doesn't standout.
It was planned initially to be about the 1,050 feet that it is now authorized to rise.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 11:41 PM   #845
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
It was planned initially to be about the 1,050 feet that it is now authorized to rise.
Jean Nouvel wanted 1,250 feet.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2010, 02:50 PM   #846
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre000 View Post
Jean Nouvel wanted 1,250 feet.
The initial proposal by Hines -- when it was first released in 2007 -- was for aorund 1,050. It was about the height of the Chrysler building. The design changed slightly, as the developer acquired more air rights, and it grew to 1,250. Nouvel wanted to proceed with his revised 1,250 design.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2010, 06:17 AM   #847
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
It was planned initially to be about the 1,050 feet that it is now authorized to rise.
You do understand I now how tall it was when they first announce it. And you see how much they cut it down by. and if it was still 1046 feet as planed, how tall would it be if you cut 200 feet off the top.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2010, 06:24 AM   #848
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

It started at around 1,050 feet and grew to about 1,250 feet as the developer acquired additional air rights to add more square footage. Amanda Burden then decreed that it could not exceed 1,050.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2010, 02:05 AM   #849
chjbolton
chjbolton
 
chjbolton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Munich
Posts: 796
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
It started at around 1,050 feet and grew to about 1,250 feet as the developer acquired additional air rights to add more square footage. Amanda Burden then decreed that it could not exceed 1,050.
What else could have we expected from a chick named Burden?!
__________________
B O L T O N
chjbolton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2010, 10:02 AM   #850
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre000 View Post
Jean Nouvel wanted 1,250 feet.
Word is, he's redesigning the tower right now. I hope it can work financially with 200 fewer feet. It could come out more boxy at the top as a result.
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2010, 10:12 AM   #851
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

I don't think the outer design will change at all. The condos will be fewer but everything else should be about the same.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2010, 06:58 PM   #852
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
Word is, he's redesigning the tower right now. I hope it can work financially with 200 fewer feet. It could come out more boxy at the top as a result.
The tower will have the same square feet as the taller version, and therefore, the financial viability is the same at 1,050 feet as at 1,250 feet.

The city required the developer to maintain the same basic shape. (See below.) Thus, it should look the same -- only thicker. This will still be a pretty thin tower.


The City Planning approvals that were enacted are based upon a design "which conform in all respects" to the plan as presented to CPC in 2009 ...

C 090431 ZSM [pdf]

IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC
RESOLVED, by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Sections 197-c and 200 of the New an application submitted by W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC pursuant to Sections 197-c and 201 of the New York City Charter for the grant of a special permit pursuant to Sections 81-212 and 74-79 of the Zoning Resolution to allow the transfer of 136,000 square feet of floor area from property located at 1 West 54th Street (Block 1270, Lot 34) that is occupied by a landmark building (University Club) to property located at 53 West 53rd Street (Block 1269, Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 30, 58, 66, 69, and 165) to facilitate the development of a mixed use building, in C6-6, C5-P, C5-2.5 and C5-3 Districts, within the Special Midtown District (partially within the Preservation and Fifth Avenue Subdistricts) Borough of Manhattan, Community District 5 is approved subject to the following conditions ...

1. The property that is the subject of this application (C 090431 ZSM) shall be developed in accordance with:
(a) Plans prepared by SLCE Architects filed with this application (“Certification Plans”), modified as necessary to reflect a reduction of building height to a height of no more than 1050 feet, and to be consistent in all respects with the Modification Notes annexed hereto as Exhibit A, which plans are incorporated in this resolution
...
2. The Department of Buildings shall not issue any Permit for the Subject Development unless and until the Chair has certified that the Department has received a single set of consolidated and revised plans which conform in all respects to the provisions of Section 1 of this resolution.
C 090432 ZSM [pdf]

IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC

EXHIBIT A
MODIFICATION NOTES
September 9th, 2009

1. Height & Overall Building Form

The height of the building shall be limited to a maximum of 1,050 feet, including all permitted obstructions. The form of the building shall be in accordance with the Approved Plans and the Supplemental Plans, as set forth in the Special Permit Resolution, as determined by the Chair pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Restrictive Declaration, and subject to the “Limitations” set forth below.
For purposes of the above, the term “in accordance” shall mean that the “Key Architectural and Design Features” enumerated below, and also as defined under the Restrictive Declaration, are fully reflected and incorporated in the building design, subject only to deviations as are consistent with the scale and relative proportions of such Key Architectural and Design Features as shown in the Approved Plans and Supplemental Plans.

The “Key Architectural and Design Features” are as follows:

Sloped planes which are in number, relative location, orientation, and proportion to the overall building form as shown in Supplemental Plans Z-21, Z-25, Z-26, Z-28.

A tower top with three distinct asymmetrical peaks, with each peak of varying height and shape, tapering to a narrow edge at the top. The tallest peak shall contain a vertex with an interior angle no greater than 27 degrees. The foregoing shall be in accordance with Supplemental Plan Z-27.

 A “Diagrid”, defined as an asymmetrical, non-orthogonal web pattern, including nodes with radial spokes. The Diagrid shall extend from the top of the building to the sidewalk, and shall be expressed in metal elements projecting beyond the exterior of the building over a curtain wall. The foregoing shall be in accordance with Supplemental Plans Z-21, Z-25 and Z-26

 Exterior walls constructed with a combination of non-mirrored insulated glass and painted aluminum elements.

Last edited by RobertWalpole; April 15th, 2010 at 07:14 PM.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2010, 06:13 PM   #853
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Nouvel was on the American television program "Charlie Rose" last night and discussed his continued work on the MOMA Tower.

http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6361
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2010, 10:05 PM   #854
thryve
░░░░░░░░░░
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,346
Likes (Received): 22

When will the new design be revealed?
thryve no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2010, 07:26 PM   #855
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

Just a heads up guys, Jean Nouvel will be venting his frustration about this tower in the upcoming New York Magazine, reports Curbed. I wonder if he will still be on board for this?
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2010, 11:35 PM   #856
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

He is onboard. He was on televsion last month (April 2010) and stated that he's retrofitting the design at the moment to accomodate the same shape at the reduced height.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 10:23 PM   #857
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

http://nymag.com/arts/architecture/features/65749/



Colossus
Jean Nouvel’s Tower Verre was going to be the biggest thing to hit the midtown skyline since the Empire State Building. Then the city told him to chop off 200 feet. Scoffs the French architect: Why is Manhattan, of all places, afraid of heights?




Nouvel's tower (seen on previous page, and above in red) was to go nose-to-nose with the Empire State Building; instead, it will be 200 feet shorter.

By Justin Davidson
May 2, 2010


Quote:
Just off Sixth Avenue, squeezed in next to the Museum of Modern Art, is a sliver of fallow ground just big enough to accommodate a convenience store or a few brownstones—or, come to think of it, a tower as tall as the Empire State Building. Skyscrapers have gotten skinnier, and three years ago, the architect Jean Nouvel designed an exhilarating mirage for this site, a slender, 1,250-foot ballerina of a building, corseted in steel beams and perpetually en pointe. The project—Tower Verre, he calls it—seemed like too flamboyant a fantasy for a cautious metropolis, and indeed the City Council approved only a stunted version, which demands a new design.

“We have to restudy it, without starting from zero,” Nouvel says. “I don’t think we have to revisit the essentials of the structure.” It may still be a twisting, sloping needle, enfolding new MoMA galleries in its base and rising to apartments with great glass walls slashed by tilting columns. Only now it can reach no higher than 1,050 feet,
a toddler’s height taller than the Chrysler Building and 200 feet shorter than the Empire State. About this, Nouvel is by turns philosophical and resentful. “The past is the past,” he says with a shrug. A few minutes later comes the zinger: “What is surprising is that Manhattan should be afraid of verticality.”

.. Nouvel has a talent for finding contexts to embrace his idiosyncrasies, and then making the results seem inevitable. “All my work is a search for what I call the missing piece of the puzzle,” he says, deftly implying that Barcelona wasn’t complete until it received his multicolored lingam, and that midtown craves his Tower Verre.

The 53rd Street skyscraper will adapt to its new height, but Nouvel insists that it must stick to the original brief: “to complete this cultural neighborhood and to complete MoMA—with a hotel and residences, yes, but it’s mostly a cultural object. It has to keep the same ambition.”
Some observers have wondered whether the design’s decapitation, combined with the financing drought of the past two years, would force the development company, Hines, to scrap the whole idea. But Robert Knakal, a commercial-real-estate investment-sales broker, suggests that the warming market makes it fairly likely to be built. (A Hines spokesperson will say only that “we continue to work on the project.”)

In Nouvel’s view, Tower Verre is not just another commercial high-rise but an emblem of its moment, a testament to the city’s self-renewing vitality, and a crown on its mutable skyline. “We’re in midtown,” he says. “A place where we have to make a real skyscraper. It emerges from the skyline and you say: Okay! That’s where MoMA is! It testifies to what the skyscraper is at the beginning of this century. It’s not a copy of what the twentieth century did. It brings new forms of expression. The corsetlike structure on the perimeter of the building, the way it follows setback rules with a dynamic form of ascent that’s not the habitual stepwise manner, a structure that erases the distinction between outdoors and in—these things tie this building to the culture of these last few years.”

If Nouvel was hoping that 40 Mercer and 100 Eleventh would prepare the way for 53 West 53rd Street, he was wrong. From the moment it was first proposed, the skyscraper tapped a gusher of outrage. Neighbors felt besieged by the coalition of a globe-trotting architect, the Houston-based developer, and an expansionist MoMA, which sold the lot to Hines partly in exchange for space in the new building. Although it’s only tangentially the museum’s project, people tend to think of it as the “MoMA tower,” and the website no2moma.com includes an animation tracking its shadow across Central Park. The group behind that site, the Coalition for Responsible Midtown Development, has teamed with the local block association in a suit to annul the city’s approval.

Much of this furor is rooted in the desire to avoid noise and disruption on a street where MoMA only recently spent years under construction. Some of it probably also represents the primal horror of enormousness that persists even in midtown Manhattan, a revulsion expressed as a law of human nature by the title character of W. G. Sebald’s 2001 novel Austerlitz: “No one in his right mind could truthfully say that he liked a vast edifice … At the most we gaze at it in wonder, a kind of wonder which in itself is a form of dawning horror, for somehow we know by instinct that outsize buildings cast the shadow of their own destruction before them, and are designed from the first with an eye to their later existence as ruins.” But if you’re standing on the sidewalk looking up, it hardly matters how high the spires reach; an ant doesn’t distinguish between a five-foot human and one who’s six-foot-four.

The most reasoned and nuanced opponent is Ada Louise Huxtable, the city’s senior architecture critic, who at 89 still contributes reviews to TheWall Street Journal. Huxtable worries about “zoning creep”—the gradual dilution of the rules that confine high-rises to the avenues and keep the side streets low. “It is the wrong building in the wrong place,” she writes in an e-mail message. “I have watched the town houses and brownstones on 53rd Street go down like dominoes over the years—it was one of the loveliest streets in the city—but the fact that they are gone does not make this building right. What I see is an enormous real-estate deal with cultural window dressing, a case history of how the zoning rules can be used to do something they were never meant to encourage.”

To Nouvel, the impulse to reject his 53rd Street tower is a symptom of an urban death wish. “As in all cities, there are conservative associations that don’t want a construction site near them and don’t want anything to happen,” he says. That’s the classic response of a spurned avant-gardiste: to accuse critics of reactionary sentiments. But Nouvel also sees the battle of Tower Verre as part of a larger struggle to define New York: Is it a more or less finished city, a museum of itself that must place a premium on preservation? Or should it still participate in the rude business of progress?

For him, cutting his building down to size was a way of protecting the skyline and stifling the manic ambition that created it in the first place. “Embalming the city—that means gradually turning it into nothing more than a tourist destination,” Nouvel says. “Paris runs the same risk.” (Nouvel lives in Paris, and although he has built several high-profile projects there, he also designed two separate skyscrapers that were approved, then shelved.) “The most extraordinary cities create energy as they form themselves, and that energy and complexity are qualities you can’t abandon. Our responsibility is to bear witness to our era. A city’s identity is not just something you preserve. It’s something you create too.”

Nouvel speaks clearly about the kind of city he abhors; less so about how a modern megalopolis like New York should continue to develop—aside from building his designs. In 2005, he wrote the “Louisiana Manifesto,” which reads like a French philosopher-architect’s cri de coeur as imagined by Stephen Colbert:

...This torrent of verbiage disguises an analytical approach based on a pair of solid principles. First, any new building on the skyline ought to start a conversation between the existing city and the fresh addition, each nudging and coaxing and shaping the other, in the way a family rebalances around each new child. Tower Verre, for example, tapers to an old-fashioned peak, lightening a skyline squared off with half a century’s worth of blocky modernist cubes.

Second, a new monument shouldn’t aspire to timelessness, but speak with vivid specificity of an instant in a city’s life. You can grasp what this means at 100 Eleventh, which is already a poignant relic, containing within it a memory of the era that made it possible, the heat of the present, and the specter of a glorious obsolescence. Standing outside the building, Nouvel shouts over the traffic and imagines the impression his creation might make on future drivers. As they speed by, fleetingly dazzled by a reflection from the fašade’s mosaic of windows, he suggests, they will glance up through the windshield and think of 2010. The building will date itself, Nouvel agrees, and that is the finest gift an architect can bequeath to posterity: “It will show what moved us in that period, which is to say … now.”

skyscraper is not a metaphor. It’s what happens when a team of cost analysts, insurers, engineers, architects, developers, investors, and lenders makes a collective determination that math, physics, and market forces, fused in one enormous hunk of a building, will probably yield a profit. But all those calculations merge with a set of deeply irrational instincts. Manhattan’s skyline was wrought by the single-minded pursuit of profit and boosted by a spiritual lust for height. To erect a tall building is to proclaim one’s faith in the future, and the skyline embodies that confidence multiplied many times over. It’s a seismograph of optimism.

That’s what’s so disappointing about the city’s timid decision to lop 200 feet off the slender needle that Jean Nouvel designed for the site abutting the Museum of Modern Art. At the proposed height of 1,250 feet—the same as the Empire State Building sans antenna—Tower Verre, a condo and hotel incorporating three floors of new MoMA galleries, would have encapsulated that quintessentially New York collusion between capital and caprice.

The design offered an exuberant counterpoint to the relentless three-dimensional matrix of midtown. Slashing upward as if trying to catch a particular cloud on the fly, its musculature of asymmetrically slanted beams visible against a taut glass skin, Tower Verre would have been New York’s most lithe, athletic skyscraper.

Perhaps a redesigned, shorter version can still punctuate the city’s silhouette with a graceful exclamation point. But it will no longer demonstrate that New York’s skyline has yet to reach its upper limits, or that it can tolerate another totemic presence. The Empire State Building won a frenzied rush to the sky; the idea that some thought it excessive or disrespectful now seems downright bizarre. Approving the design of Tower Verre while lowering the height was not a compromise but an example of curatorial caution run amok, an attempt to turn midtown into an architectural preserve.

New York is not Paris, besotted with its glory days and dozing in beautiful senescence; it reconstitutes itself almost daily, nourished by a regular supply of invention. The inspiring arrogance of Nouvel’s tower should never have been quashed by timorous bureaucrats.

When Henry James referred to skyscrapers as “monsters of the mere market,” he worried that they would swallow the city. He misperceived the real source of their addictiveness: not greed but ego. New York revealed the efficiency of verticality, yet some of its tallest towers soar well above the point of diminishing returns. The Rutgers economist Jason Barr has quantified the “status effect”—how much higher some skyscrapers rise than the profit motive would justify. The Empire State Building, Barr estimates, is 54 stories taller than pure accounting suggests it should be. The race to erect the world’s tallest skyscraper endowed the Chrysler Building with 37 extra stories and its rival, 40 Wall Street, with 29. Barr doesn’t follow his reasoning to the logical conclusion: If money alone shaped the skyline, we would have a stumpier city.

Instead, the mine-is-bigger-than-yours quest for stature has produced an ever more spectacular skyline, a dynamic work of collective genius. In our great-grandparents’ childhoods, the spire of Trinity Church pricked the soft blur of the horizon, dominating the landscape the way churches all over Europe did. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the first commercial towers boasting steel frames and elevators had hemmed the steeple in, replacing celestial aspirations with commercial ones. New Yorkers must have wondered how long those offenders against gravity could stay aloft. But the towers remain, or some do, anyway; it’s the sky that’s gone.

Each era’s giants are made puny by the next. “Sky-scrapers are the last word of economic ingenuity only till another word be written,” James wrote in 1906. He was right, except that the “other word” turned out to be taller skyscrapers.

Alarmed by the prospect of a high-rise forest, the city began regulating the skyline in 1916. The law funneled sunlight to the sidewalk by allowing greater height on wider streets and requiring buildings to recede as they rose. Hugh Ferriss, the architect whose brooding renderings made him the Piranesi of New York, understood the ambition and romance embedded in those limits. Because new towers would rise above the four- and five-story undergrowth, he wrote, “architects will design buildings, not fašades. That is to say, architecture comes into her own.” Ferriss saw the regulations not as a check but as a liberating force, and in 1929, he used them as a template when he published The Metropolis of Tomorrow, a meticulously conceived, elaborately illustrated, and utterly horrific fantasy, complete with pedestrian skyways and rooftop landing pads.

The real New York skyline is always more fantastical than the imaginary ones. It recounts a saga of utopian quests, inspired gambles, benign neglect, aesthetic dead-ends, and historical accidents. We have the Depression to thank for the way the silhouette dips low south of 34th Street. Midtown’s office towers record the city’s economic fluctuations as clearly as a bar graph. The tip of Manhattan lays out the stratified chaos of history, as the eighteenth-century James Watson House rubs up against the curving glass pillar of 17 State Street from the 1980s, and Gilded Age white palazzi crescendo to the void left by the Twin Towers. This sublime jumble defies grandiose urbanism, and when September 11 presented New York with a clean slate, it threw planners into years of confusion.

We have a messy, malleable system for making decisions about the skyline. Over the decades, the zoning code has metamorphosed from a simplistic citywide policy into a catalogue of block-by-block variations. In the end, most planning decisions affecting the skyline come down to an emotional response. Bold ideas are tossed into a cauldron of traffic studies, environmental-impact statements, community-board meetings, and landmark hearings, a broth that tends to boil good architecture down to a glutinous pulp.

Picking away details at the neighborhood level winds up diluting a design just as effectively as the top-down politics that screwed up ground zero.

One World Trade Center, the 1,776-foot emblem of recovered pride formerly known as the Freedom Tower, will thrust 2.6 million square feet of office space onto a market that doesn’t know what to do with so many cubicles and conference rooms. The design is a monument to ambivalence: a technologically advanced symbol of liberal democracy that boasts new standards of security and egress. If the beacon becomes an inferno, at least it will be relatively easy to get out. The safest move would have been not to put up this tower at all, but New York wasn’t built by the circumspect, and the steel frame has already reached past the twentieth floor. Just 80 or so more, and New York will have its newest, hugest icon of pragmatism and lunacy. A skyscraper born of horror and designed in chaos and compromise may someday come to be the star of the skyline.

To some people, each new tall building is another oppressor, banishing the sun, barricading views, crushing brownstones, and dumping more hordes on crowded subway platforms. Skyscraper hatred is no more rational than skyscraper love, but it disguises itself as a form of sober preservation. Actually, the skyline’s upper layer can thrive without much management. The costs and controversies involved in super-tall buildings have done a pretty good job of keeping the stratosphere from getting crowded. New York has only fifteen buildings that top 800 feet; most are well designed, and none of them is awful.

The real danger to the skyline lies in letting it choke in a weedy blight of medium-high-rises, appalling in their ordinariness. Those blah 30- and 40-story towers leave the city’s summits untouched, but they ravage neighborhoods and raise the horizon, flattening out the skyline from below. Take a look at 808 Columbus Avenue, a broad, ungainly 29-story tower that anchors Columbus Square, near 97th Street. Neighbors howled about its bulk, but it’s the design that makes it monstrous. A graceful skyscraper twice the size would have been half as offensive.

Somehow, this vertical city has acquired a fear of height and felt the powerful undertow of nostalgia. We look back in fondness, ahead in apprehension. Even One World Trade, which will be America’s tallest tower, feels less like a herald of the future than a restoration of the past: Lower Manhattan will get a glassy spike to replace the two it lost, and the Empire State Building will continue its midtown reign.

But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 11:11 PM   #858
HK999
University of HK / 香港大學
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hong Kong SAR / 香港特區
Posts: 3,389
Likes (Received): 336

Quote:
The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die.
+1. the same applies to every major city in the world, not only to NY.
__________________
Sapientia et Virtus 明德格物
Industrial Organization, MSc
HK999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 11:23 PM   #859
Draegen
I LIKE SKYSCRAPERS
 
Draegen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 466
Likes (Received): 44

Annoying whiny people should move away from Manhattan and move to the suburbs where they can disrupt progress there
Draegen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2010, 11:39 PM   #860
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

The important thing is that a 300+m magnificent tower that looks like the proposals we've seen will rise here.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
53 w. 53rd st., jean nouvel, midtown, moma, new york, nyc, supertall, tower verre

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 06:23 AM.


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