NEW YORK | 30 Hudson Yards (North Tower) | 1,296 FT | 92 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Fantastic article and new renderings. Didn't know there would be an observation deck!

http://nymag.com/homedesign/urbanliv.../hudson-yards/

They've really got to issue me a warning when releasing such goodness...

While the Coach tower does indeed appear to be shorter, that's just an afterthought compared to the other 3 towers that are now in detail...

Resized a few...
http://nymag.com/homedesign/urbanliv...ds/index2.html

Atop the 1,300-foot office tower, soon to rise at 33rd Street and Tenth Avenue, by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates.

Hudson Yards circa 2017

1. This office tower, by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, will become Coach headquarters.
2. Apartments by Diller Scofidio +Renfro, joined by David Rockwell: condos on top, rentals below.
3. The flagship office building, also by KPF: 1,300 feet high.
4. The curvy multiuse tower by David Childs contains a hotel, condominiums, and a big Equinox gym.
5. The shopping arcade (please don't call it the mall).
6.The Culture Shed: still unrevealed, but a great big space for traveling exhibits and other events.

Unnumbered buildings (the western half of the development) have yet to be designed.

[kickser]

Holy moly. Baby baby, NYC is definately coming back to wehere it belongs, the unrivaled and unbeatable KING of skylines. A 2000 feet building and my dreams come true.

[Busy Bee]

All these supertalls going up this decade just reiterates, at least for me, just how much a missed opportunity the Time Warner Center really was. Oh well. And yes, these new designs look amazing. Looking forward to seeing more detail.

[Thefigman]

Holy $#@^!

[aquablue]

It appears the Coach tower is now shorter.

It also appears that tower #4 could be over 300m, yes?

[reencharles]

Well, it seems that Coach headquarters tower is a bit smaller. Who knows about 280/290 meters? Moreover, the multiuse curvy tower (4) seems higher than 300 meters, which would be very good. But anyway, let's wait and see. Anyway I was impressed with the renders.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by aquablue

It appears the Coach tower is now shorter.

It also appears that tower #4 could be over 300m, yes?

iirc it was always expected to be

[JayPro]

@NYGuy or whoever blew up the pics:

I now see the *awesome* thing I missed and made the mistake on with the Hudson River perspective.

It appears that the Childs Tower #4 is *hella* slender from that angle.

Lemme repeat: *::hella::* slender.

(BTW: You might notice that 432 Park seems to insinuate itself in the rendering I cite (One57 seems to not be visible from this vantage point; but I may have the two mixed up here). Find CitySpire and you'll see either one or the other. )

One question though: Are nos. 2 and 4 due for the same kind of facade treatment as far as glass hue is concerned? I hope to see something different to as not to create a sense of visual monotony in that regard.

Oh yes........Did I mention that the ob deck on KPS's big one is *sick*? JK

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by JayPro

@NYGuy or whoever blew up the pics:

I now see the *awesome* thing I missed and made the mistake on with the Hudson River perspective.

It appears that the Childs Tower #4 is *hella* slender from that angle.

Lemme repeat: *::hella::* slender.

(BTW: You might notice that 432 Park seems to insinuate itself in the rendering I cite (One57 seems to not be visible from this vantage point; but I may have the two mixed up here). Find CitySpire and you'll see either one or the other. )

One question though: Are nos. 2 and 4 due for the same kind of facade treatment as far as glass hue is concerned? I hope to see something different to as not to create a sense of visual monotony in that regard.

Oh yes........Did I mention that the ob deck on KPS's big one is *sick*? JK

The tower pictured in the rendering is One57, and Visualhouse appears to have just used a massing model.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JayPro

It appears that the Childs Tower #4 is *hella* slender from that angle.

Yes, we knew from looking at the model that the building would be oriented inwards or towards the office towers. But in today's article, it mentions that the tower could possibly be rotated 90 degrees.


http://nymag.com/homedesign/urbanliv.../hudson-yards/

The people in the conference room can visualize that future in high-resolution detail. On the screen, digital couples stroll among trees pruned to cubical perfection. A chain of glowing towers garlands the skyline, and tiny figures stroll onto a deck hanging nearly a quarter-mile in the air. Architects discuss access points, sidewalk widths, ceiling heights, flower beds, and the qualities of crushed-stone pathways. You could almost forget that none of this exists yet—until one architect points to a lozenge-shaped skyscraper and casually, with a twist of his wrist, remarks that he’s thinking of swiveling it 90 degrees.

The Related Companies, the main developer of the site, has called this meeting so that the designers of the various buildings can finally talk to each other, instead of just to the client. I’m getting the first look at the details at the same time some of the participants are. Suddenly, after years of desultory negotiations and leisurely design, the project has acquired urgency: Ground-breaking on the first tower will take place in the coming weeks. There’s a high-octane crew in the room: William Pedersen, co-founder of the high-rise titans Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates; David Childs, partner at the juggernaut Skidmore Owings and Merrill; Elizabeth Diller, front woman for the cerebral boutique Diller Scofidio + Renfro; ­David Rockwell, a virtuoso of showbiz and restaurant design; Howard Elkus, from the high-end shopping-center specialists Elkus Manfredi; and landscape architect Thomas Woltz, the only member of the group new to New York real-estate politics. Their task is to compose a neighborhood from scratch.

I'm getting a very "World Trade Center-like" feel to the complex.

One question though: Are nos. 2 and 4 due for the same kind of facade treatment as far as glass hue is concerned?

For a better idea of what Childs may be planning, check here...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199033

[ATLksuGUY]

I really have to say, I love the design of tower two in these recent renderings. This whole complex has really gotten me excited lately. Go NY.

[JayPro]

If you mean 90º rotation in the sense that the curved side of #4 would be facing #2 as shown in the annotated rendering, I can dig that.

BTW, #2 can really pull the rug from under all the others in treated *just* right. I'm liking the quad-tube design at the upper half; but the somewhat tortuous segue from what looks like a comparatively restrained quadrilateral base leaves a bit to be desired.

O'course I do understand that there will be some more tweaking to come...but perhaps less than what we may think will happen because as you mentioned, this whole potentially new neighborhood is on a timescale whose visible presence is at hand.

Like a lot of others on this thread, it just now has dawned on me how suddenly this has evolved beyond the scope of something like a Calgary project with Mini-Me twin. This is on a par with the new WTC, with the pieces falling into place at a *unreal* pace.

Then there's the rest of the West Side...the literal Rise of 57th Street...and now the active plane to rezone Midtown East. As I've said before, barring any economic meltdown, we're in for one tantalizing treat after another for as long as the desire to build big (or skinny) and tall exists.

[aquablue]

Here's an interesting question.

The western yards massing study looks very cramped and dense with many short towers crammed in together. Why is it that they did not allocate more square footage to the Eastern yards (allowing for the two residential towers to be taller and larger) in order to allow more open space/park land on the Western side through elimination of a building or two? I wonder why this plan was done in this manner. I suppose NIMBY factors pertaining to the height of all the towers on the East side or a lack of interest in open space on the West by the developers? Ideally the Western yard would have been 4 tall towers surrounding a park rather than the large amount there now. I don't see the logic in reducing the height towards the river if it leads to less open space for residents to enjoy. The only thing would be blocking of views from the towers on the Eastern side?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JayPro

If you mean 90º rotation in the sense that the curved side of #4 would be facing #2 as shown in the annotated rendering, I can dig that.

Yeah, and btw, the full width of the tower would be seen from the Hudson depending on where you are viewing it from.

Like a lot of others on this thread, it just now has dawned on me how suddenly this has evolved beyond the scope of something like a Calgary project with Mini-Me. This is on a par with the new WTC, with the pieces falling into place at a *unreal* pace.

Then there's the rest of the West Side...the literal Rise of 57th Street...and now the active plane to rezone Midtown East. As I've said before, barring any economic meltdown, we're in for one tantalizing treat after another for as long as the desire to build big (or skinny) and tall exists.

And keep in mind that this is only half of the railyard development, the other half will contain more towers than the eastern half, but that's down the road. Also, other mega projects like Manhattan West and One Hudson Yards border this one. Insane, the amount of development we could be seeing on the west side. I hope to see more surprises like this...

[Dac150]

Some interesting and abundant info to digest. What jumps out at me more than anything is the observation component shown above as apart of the 'flagship' tower. What a stunning experience that would be.

[CCs77]

I wonder how many people would step in the corner of that platform, and then, a la Leonardo and Kate, shout "I'm the king of the wooorld"

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Some interesting and abundant info to digest. What jumps out at me more than anything is the observation component shown above as apart of the 'flagship' tower. What a stunning experience that would be.

To say nothing of the height entering into it, the idea of having an ob deck as an exterior element is singularly daring for United States high-rise architecture, if not altogether unprecedented.

[Roadcruiser1]

The Hudson Yards project looks like the new World Trade Center with Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center rotated to the other side. Pretty cool, but not unexpected from Childs.

[gramsjdg]

Building #2 looks hideous, especially with that tapering x-brace transition

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Closer attention has to be given to the overall aesthetic of not only the site as a whole but the buildings individually. The designs look mediocre and messy at best given the names who designed them. The coach tower also has lost a lot of appeal due to the height reduction. This has to be refined.