NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

While inventing new forms isn't easy, copy a current form that's still in style. I've been saying for a YEAR that a Shard-style building should've gone on this site. I've gone to the point of sending Raphael Vinoly blueprints of a Shard style building that I designed. I've tried to get meetings with him, and even a conversation with him. His office always picks up, and states he's not available. But we should've gotten something really good, since this will be the first building to surpass the Empire State Building's 81 year reign as king of Midtown. People who hate this building DON'T hate boxes as many have attacked me of doing. There should've been a good design here. BUT the material used in this building should be good, because it's a billion dollar building with an insignificant form.

How would your shard design allow for full size penthouse floor space as currently planed? Would it be a shorter tower that would decrease valuable views that the developer is using to market his building?

Also, why would you contact an architect? Do you really think you can convince him to change his design?

I am a, sure he is bound to his clients brief. Perhaps you should just learn to accept the stringent zoning regs that limit design flexibility in NYC. I don't see how you can have the height and the floor space up high with a tapering shard like design given the FAR rules. This building is all about selling views, so smaller penthouses or fewer good views might harm the sales.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Originally Posted by aquablue

How would your shard design allow for full size penthouse floor space.

Also, why would you contact an architect? Do you really think you can convince him to change his design?

I a, sure he is bound to his clients brief. Perhaps you should just learn to accept the limiting zoning regs limit design flexibility in NYC.

There would actually be just about the same amount of space. Remember a Shard design here would use the whole lot, while the current design is a 93x93 ft box. The bottom would of course have more space than the top, which is perfect for a hotel. The point around the 1,100 foot mark would be the point where the Shard building would start having dimensions under 93 ft. The top would have a few valuable penthouses, that could be the most expensive in the world, since they would be intimately owned and only one person would have one of a kind. And it could either go 1400 ft or taller and would've been able to beat the 1500+ ft 225 W 57th, since it would taper which is considered by NYCDOB standards a special setback, which by Shard design has an abundance of. Plus my design had floor to ceiling windows, unlike the current design. Plus the actual Shard is a penthouse building, and cuts off under the thousand foot point, and the top is just a crown (just as my building). Do I think I could convince him? I didn't since he never sat down with me. Lastly, how would my building allow for full size penthouses? Other than what I already said, look at the example presented by the actual Shard in London.

[miesian]

This tower is NOT trying to look like a Gothic cathedral---it's not evoking a style of the past or a "futuristic" Shanghai or Dubai look. A building has to look like SOMETHING after all. And why not a tower of windows because that's what it is. It's honesty might be shocking to some people, but that's what makes it powerful----like Maki's 4WTC.
The shock of the new.......?

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

There would actually be just about the same amount of space. Remember a Shard design here would use the whole lot, while the current design is a 93x93 ft box. The bottom would of course have more space than the top, which is perfect for a hotel. The point around the 1,100 foot mark would be the point where the Shard building would start having dimensions under 93 ft. The top would have a few valuable penthouses, that could be the most expensive in the world, since they would be intimately owned and only one person would have one of a kind. And it could either go 1400 ft or taller and would've been able to beat the 1500+ ft 225 W 57th, since it would taper which is considered by NYCDOB standards a special setback, which by Shard design has an abundance of. Plus my design had floor to ceiling windows, unlike the current design. Plus the actual Shard is a penthouse building, and cuts off under the thousand foot point, and the top is just a crown (just as my building). Do I think I could convince him? I didn't since he never sat down with me. Lastly, how would my building allow for full size penthouses? Other than what I already said, look at the example presented by the actual Shard in London.

Perhaps having smaller penthouses above 1100 feet would not be viable to sell this tower and make money. In your design, I bet the penthouse at the same height as the current is pretty small given the limitations of FAR. It could be too small to be as desirable compared to what is going in now.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Perhaps having smaller penthouses above 1100 feet would not be viable to sell this tower and make money. In your design, I bet the penthouse at the same height as the current is pretty small given the limitations of FAR. It could be too small to be as desirable compared to what is going in now.

No, it's pretty decent sized. I have my blueprints. Remember the current design is 93x93 ft. My design uses the WHOLE lot, while the current tower uses a small portion (which allows it to go tall yet have no setbacks). My tower uses the whole lot yet has special setbacks which allow it to go just as (if not) taller.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

No, it's pretty decent sized. I have my blueprints. Remember the current design is 93x93 ft. My design uses the WHOLE lot, while the current tower uses a small portion (which allows it to go tall yet have no setbacks). My tower uses the whole lot yet has special setbacks which allow it to go just as (if not) taller.

You didn't adress my concern. I'm talking about the top floor residences. You said that the would be smaller than the current tower above 1100 feet. That won't work well if the plan is to sell large penthouses at maximum height. That would probably be more difficult to market the valuable top floors. So, again, how much square footage do the penthouses in your design have at the same height as the current while complying with FAR?

[TechTalkGuy]

You know what?

This discussion is off topic and needs to return back to the building that is rising on 432 Park Avenue.

Respect my desire to follow this tower, not your rejected design.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

You know what?

This discussion is off topic and needs to return back to the building that is rising on 432 Park Avenue.

Respect my desire to follow this tower, not your rejected design.

432 Park Avenue is precisely the topic being discussed. I really dislike that thoughtful comments remarking on the design/aesthetics are somehow intolerable here but throwaway comments like "Love this building; can't wait till it's up " are in some magical way contributing to a discussion. What discussion is that exactly?

Anyway, I've added my two cents.

[LibraryTower]

Originally Posted by elysium

432 Park Avenue is precisely the topic being discussed. I really dislike that thoughtful comments remarking on the design/aesthetics are somehow intolerable here but throwaway comments like "Love this building; can't wait till it's up " are in some magical way contributing to a discussion. What discussion is that exactly?

Anyway, I've added my two cents.

Agreed, I don't know why praise and photos are valued more than intellectual discussion on this forum?

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by elysium

432 Park Avenue is precisely the topic being discussed. I really dislike that thoughtful comments remarking on the design/aesthetics are somehow intolerable here but throwaway comments like "Love this building; can't wait till it's up " are in some magical way contributing to a discussion. What discussion is that exactly?

Anyway, I've added my two cents.

I understand what you're saying. I go back and forth between liking and disliking this building, but in the end, I think its height and width (or lack there of) will provide interest to this otherwise banal design. I remain cautiously optimistic. Afterall, we've barely seen a proper rendering.

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by LibraryTower

Agreed, I don't know why praise and photos are valued more than intellectual discussion on this forum?

I am glad that other forum members have noticed this trend.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

I've been saying for a YEAR that a Shard-style building should've gone on this site.

Well, I've been saying all along that the tower was designed to maximize the site with views and at the same time, built as of right. A "shard" was never going to go here. Now, for the size of the tower, I don't see many other options for obtaining that height.

But love it or hate it, the tower continues to rise...



(January 7, 2013)


www.432park.com



www.432park.com

[Harley613]

If Tower Verre is getting built then you will get your Midtown Shard!

[marvelfannumber1]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Again people seem to have forgotten that we did have boxes for one point as skyscrapers, and they were the tallest in the city.


Just having a box as a design doesn't mean that it will look bad. We have to see how it blends in before we can say it looks bad.

Yes that is true, but as far as i am aware we have moved on from the horrbile brutalism and simple shapes of the '70s. We were not given anything good from that era of architecture other than some slightly impressive heights.

I'll have to wait for some cladding to go up before i make my judgement but at this point of time i am not very impressed with this tower (other than it's height and location.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by LibraryTower

Agreed, I don't know why praise and photos are valued more than intellectual discussion on this forum?

Maybe because that usually leads to trolling,city vs. city crap, and other things that ruin the flow that people want. I too want to discuss everything that pertains to this building, but why risk the idiotic backlash that will also erupt? There's nothing we can do but just watch and enjoy the rising of this tower. I'm not saying to just mindlessly like this building, but loathing over it won't change the fact that it will be built.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, I've been saying all along that the tower was designed to maximize the site with views and at the same time, built as of right. A "shard" was never going to go here. Now, for the size of the tower, I don't see many other options for obtaining that height.
]

Isn't that the point I was debating with him? He just doesn't get it, and has not responded to my request about the penthouse floor space in his design?

Originally Posted by marvelfannumber1

Yes that is true, but as far as i am aware we have moved on from the horrbile brutalism and simple shapes of the '70s. We were not given anything good from that era of architecture other than some slightly impressive heights.

I'll have to wait for some cladding to go up before i make my judgement but at this point of time i am not very impressed with this tower (other than it's height and location.

Brutalist wasn't all horrible, there are plenty of nice examples of it... it is silly to dismiss all buildings from that era. If you examine them closely you learn to appreciate them.

Originally Posted by jd3189

Maybe because that usually leads to trolling,city vs. city crap, and other things that ruin the flow that people want. I too want to discuss everything that pertains to this building, but why risk the idiotic backlash that will also erupt? There's nothing we can do but just watch and enjoy the rising of this tower. I'm not saying to just mindlessly like this building, but loathing over it won't change the fact that it will be built.

The problem is people often focus too much on design and aesthetics but not as much on the economic and marketability of a tower on this site. Design is not everything in the end.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Isn't that the point I was debating with him? He just doesn't get it, and has not responded to my request about the penthouse floor space in his design?

I guess I have to say sorry in this scenario. But whatever, yesterday I didn't reply because I didn't have the time. But a Shard-like tower IS possible for this site, but I'll talk about it later with you if you want, when I have time. There's you reply for now. REMEMBER I don't shy away from anything, any question, comment, or dilemma and of course conversation.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

I guess I have to say sorry in this scenario. But whatever, yesterday I didn't reply because I didn't have the time. But a Shard-like tower IS possible for this site, but I'll talk about it later with you if you want, when I have time.

Sure, lay it out, I would be interested to see how marketable such a tower would be.

[xnyr]

Just grabbed this from sitecam:

432park

[chrisvfr800i]

[QUOTE=NYguy;5961431](January 6, 2013)



www.432park.com


Based on the pictures, it appears the construction sequence includes what I would call pouring the columns "down." IE, pouring the vertical elements and the slab above them on the same operation. Is this normal in NYC? Is it a schedule consideration? Site restriction?

It's not particularly common in here in Chicago, but I'm not sure why.