NEW YORK | The Spiral (509 W. 34th) | 1,041 FT | 66 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills when reading these comments. This building is absolutely lovely. One thing I do agree with is that it should be taller. If it wrapped up for another ring making it around 1200-1300 feet tall it would be a gem

That's mostly what I'm upset about, we were lead to believe we were getting a signature tower here. This building is alright and it's definitely grown on me but ~1000 isn't much height anymore in NYC.

[dendenden]

There is thought in this design and I appreciate that, but I bet it would look a lot better without the greenery.

[Doubleu1117]

What a lazy building. It just stops. And these parks and green space on buildings just looks tacky imo. BIG is just not a good architect for NYC. American cities in general really. His style fits better in European cities, like London, or Asian, Middle East. Hi style is kind of gaudy and doesn't really respect what has come before it. His designs dont fit with a city, and fell out of place.

[Eidolon]

^^^
3 Hudson Boulevard and 55 Hudson will largely obscure it when viewed from the Hudson river. But I don't think that the design is all bad, though it should be made a bit taller in my opinion.

[Dac150]

I like the design, simple yet elegant. I definitely agree that it could use a height boost by a couple hundred feet…something along the lines of One Vanderbilt height.

[NYguy]

http://m.nydailynews.com/life-style/...icle-1.2523975

Speyer’s statement about the new design also revealed that the company had lined up $1 billion from “a group of international investors”
to get the building underway.

• Video Link

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills when reading these comments.

When you consider everything else that's going on in the city - the Nordstrom, 111 W. 57th, One Vanderbilt, 53W53 (Tower Verre), 340 Flatbush, it's even crazier to get upset
about the height and even the design of this one. It is odd that we've reached the point where even a 1,000 ft building could be considered "filler", but that's where we're going.

I will say this though, a building that is going to call itself "the" anything should be taller than it's neighbors at least. As far as the design goes, I think that too often
we forget the perspective of the tenant, which is how I look at BIG's designs for both this tower and 2 WTC.

Originally Posted by Prezrezc

If they can't build it at least 50 feet taller, then I suggest it be one of the centerpieces in the Phase II aspect of the overall scheme.

This isn't part of any scheme. It's a stand alone development.



From the website...

www.thespiralny.com


















[img]

[chris08876]

This is at least a little more tolerable than BIG's WTC2 design.

If you play that Ingel video in slow motion, you'd think Schwarzenegger designed this.

But lets be honest. The design is pretty good. Compared to what could of risen at WTC2 site, this is a big improvement in a way.

[Crawford]

I think it looks good, but I also think 2 WTC looks good. BIG hasn't designed something that I haven't liked.

And only on SSP is a 3 million square foot supertall by a starchitect considered a disappointment.

If you want really tall towers, they probably aren't going to be on sites with huge footprints. Those are ideal for office towers with giant floorplates. There are plenty of sites in the city where much taller residential towers will rise.

[chris08876]

^^^^

I'd imagine its the flora in the sky gardens that throws most off. It looks like they tried to emphasis that in the renderings, but in reality, gardens never become the focal point of most towers once they rise. In terms of the actual facade and design, its A+.

Hudson Yards has become the experimental ground for new architecture, and so far, from 10 to 30 HY, its working out pretty well. This will only aid, and solidify these blocks as the 21st Century New York.

[yankeesfan1000]

Is there not a more crown suggesting skyscraper feature than a ribbon wrapping around the building? It looks like they were designing it, and then reached the top of the sheet of the paper they were drawing on, and just said, oh well, ran out of space, and then just drew a straight line. This honestly just seems like lazy architecture.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think it looks good, but I also think 2 WTC looks good. BIG hasn't designed something that I haven't liked.

And only on SSP is a 3 million square foot supertall by a starchitect considered a disappointment.

Anything short of a 2,000 ft tower on this site is a disappointment for most of these people, so go from there.

The design for tower 2 is better, but the design for this one itself isn't a bad one. The large open spaces seem to be where the market is at, and this will be refined more, especially when we get a tenant (wouldn't it be a strike in the back of Silverstein if it turned out FOX chose this site).

The only thing nagging me with this one (other than the potential plateau of 1,000 ft buildings) is the tying it in so closely to the High Line. We know that SHoP's 360 10th Avenue will take that mantle (and likely be taller).

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'm glad they are calling it conceptual at the moment. Needs more refinement.

This design will stay concept, will never get built.

Bjarke should go back to designing small buildings.

[Doubleu1117]

This building ends so abruptly. Your eyes move up the tower and then nothing. It seems really uninteresting of a design.

[chris08876]

I guess 30 Hudson is the signature tower for the foreseeable future. I don't think anything in Phase II will exceed it. I was hoping that the Tishman site would be it, but, I guess 30 HY will do.

[Foosh]

Originally Posted by Shwayze1994

Ingels really needs to quit trying to incorporate plants and trees into his designs. They just don't go together. Parks are on ground level for a reason, not in the sky.

I completely disagree with you, whenever vegetation can be incorporated in a design...it should!

[jsbrook]

I don't see the issue with this building. It's different, and I like the way it's trying to incorporate these terraces and vegetation. I actually like it a fair bit. Far better than I liked his design for 2 WTC. It does seem somewhat incomplete and conceptual, though, and like it can and should be refined. They should also show some winter renderings. What will these buildings that incorporate trees so heavily in the design scheme look like when there are no leaves. That's obviously a consideration.

[chris08876]

Larger Rendering:


Credit: http://www.archdaily.com/781752/big-...al-tower-photo

[chris08876]

Be sure to check BIG's site. Extra models and views from there.

Link" http://www.big.dk/#projects-tsp

Scroll option is on lower right. Kinda small. 28 pics in total.

[CityGuy87]

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I guess 30 Hudson is the signature tower for the foreseeable future. I don't think anything in Phase II will exceed it. I was hoping that the Tishman site would be it, but, I guess 30 HY will do.

There are lots of supertalls planned for HY, and I don't doubt some will top 30 HY. We know SHoP is planning a residential supertall nearby, for instance. We know Monian is building an office supertall. We know Silverstein plans a residential supertall. Spitzer supposedly plans a residential supertall.

There are plenty of sites that we know nothing about. Only a very small fraction of HY is actually planned out.