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

[sw5710]

In the picture with both buildings in it 432 is farther away then 450 is from the camera. With 432 the perimeter is now up to the 22nd column or tier level above the 56th Street entrance. The core jump today brings the core to between the 25th and 26th This going with 15' 6''per.

[J'orker]

Yikes, this thing is destined to be a very tall eyesore. It was unfortunately designed for the sole benefit of those inside, disregarding the rest of us who'll have to look at the exterior. Obviously this is only one man's opinion but, the aesthetic of that concrete facade is simply parking garage banal, it screams "I am a thick, cheap material guarding wealth". I really want to like this project but it's impossible from any angle thus far. I can't believe something so dull and lifeless is being built in 2013. It seems like Vinoly phoned this one in and went back to bed, there's nothing interesting about it other than height. Shame on you Rafael!

[sw5710]

Just wait till the glass is installed. It will be mostly 10'x10' glass windows surrounded by white concrete. I am cool with that. Column reinforcement going up today to window level 23 on the perimeter.

[J'orker]

^Here's the glass, it looks just as cheap as the concrete.


432 Park Ave. by BrooklynFlyGuy, on Flickr

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by J'orker

Yikes, this thing is destined to be a very tall eyesore. It was unfortunately designed for the sole benefit of those inside, disregarding the rest of us who'll have to look at the exterior. Obviously this is only one man's opinion but, the aesthetic of that concrete facade is simply parking garage banal, it screams "I am a thick, cheap material guarding wealth". I really want to like this project but it's impossible from any angle thus far. I can't believe something so dull and lifeless is being built in 2013. It seems like Vinoly phoned this one in and went back to bed, there's nothing interesting about it other than height. Shame on you Rafael!

The rest of us didn't pay millions to look at it either.

This tower is pretty simple, but sometimes simple isn't bad. This tower doesn't necessarily need an over the top design since it will already have its height.

[JACKinBeantown]

I've spent years working in advertising. There's an old cliched phrase that people sometimes say when making a commercial and something doesn't look exactly right in the footage they've shot: "That's OK, we'll fix it in post." (Post being creative editing or color correction, or something of the sort.) It never looks as good fixing it in post as it does getting it right in the first place. So this tower will be tall with a bland design and inferior concrete... that's OK, we'll fix it in post.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by J'orker

^Here's the glass, it looks just as cheap as the concrete.

I know little about construction, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. This building is anything but cheap.

People don't spend $90 million on cheap apartments. It may not be your style, but there are probably few equivalents on earth for developer cost-per-unit.

[chris08876]

It actually takes a lot of engineering and money to construct such a thin, tall tower in a small footprint. The cost of this is $1.25 billion. Not cheap for pencil thin.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by J'orker

^Here's the glass, it looks just as cheap as the concrete.


432 Park Ave. by BrooklynFlyGuy, on Flickr

It looks much better then the building behind and to the left of it.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I know little about construction, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. This building is anything but cheap.

People don't spend $90 million on cheap apartments. It may not be your style, but there are probably few equivalents on earth for developer cost-per-unit.

If you know little about construction how can you make such an objective judgement call? I'm pretty sure he was expressing a subjective opinion about the aesthetics of the design. Height and cost have nothing to do with aesthetics.

[arkitekte]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

If you know little about construction how can you make such an objective judgement call? I'm pretty sure he was expressing a subjective opinion about the aesthetics of the design. Height and cost have nothing to do with aesthetics.

This tower is so expensive that this probably doesn't apply in this case, but in some cases height and cost have everything to do with aesthetics. Construction costs greatly limit what some can do with aesthetics to stay within a budget.

[McSky]

Does anyone think that "cheap" concrete could support a building 1,397 feet tall and only 93.5 feet wide? That's a 15:1 height:width ratio. So obviously the concrete is high-strength, and expensive.

Visually, we can see quite a difference between the architectural concrete and the concrete at the retail level. But they are both expensive, high-strength mixes. They're not just pouring cinder block-type concrete for this building.

We have relatively few photos of direct sun striking the architectural concrete (due to the modest height of the building so far), but in those we do have, that concrete looks excellent. And the upper levels of the building will be exposed to more sunlight as the structure ascends above the surrounding buildings. This building will be tremendously bright on sunny days, and will have very different appearance depending on the ambient light.



I think the design will result in an iconic an impressive skyscraper. The only concern I have is the windows. Not the glass itself, but how is it set in the openings. Visually, it would be better to eliminate the black surrounding area for visual appeal. Also, if they leave a gap between the windows and the concrete as we see in the closeup below, pigeons and other birds will definitely try to roost there.



Overall, the symmetry, proportions and bright concrete should make for an impressive structure. It will be interesting to see how 432 Park will complement the other giant towers that should be standing near it ten years from now: One57, 225 W 57th, 107 W 57th, Torre Verre, and 1 Vanderbilt.

[hunser]

^ 432 PA uses 14,000 PSI strong concrete, on par with 1WTC. So far that's the strongest concrete ever used in a skyscraper.

Thus calling the concrete 'cheap' is ridiculous .

[mdsayh1]

You guys are being too literal in your response to J'orker. He's calling the concrete and glass cheap because that is its perceived value aesthetically. He's not referring to the actual cost. No one care about that. It's the fact that a tall square is being erected as the soon to be tallest building in NY and the simple design does not really inspire much. There are so many heightmongers on this forum that are quick to excuse poor design simply for height because they are desperate to see something of interest happening locally in NY. I live in NY and love this city but that doesn't change the fact that far more interesting projects are happening globally outside of NY and we are clinging on to projects like this because they break some sort of height barrier in the city.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by hunser

^ 432 PA uses 14,000 PSI strong concrete, on par with 1WTC. So far that's the strongest concrete ever used in a skyscraper.

Thus calling the concrete 'cheap' is ridiculous .

14,000 PSI concrete for both buildings! WOW. Im interested to see the window washer unit installed here and if they will use it to do touchup work on the concrete later.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by mdsayh1

You guys are being too literal in your response to J'orker. He's calling the concrete and glass cheap because that is its perceived value aesthetically. He's not referring to the actual cost. No one care about that. It's the fact that a tall square is being erected as the soon to be tallest building in NY and the simple design does not really inspire much. There are so many heightmongers on this forum that are quick to excuse poor design simply for height because they are desperate to see something of interest happening locally in NY. I live in NY and love this city but that doesn't change the fact that far more interesting projects are happening globally outside of NY and we are clinging on to projects like this because they break some sort of height barrier in the city.

Just look at the original WTC. Boxes to that became so liked over time.

[CCs77]

The core of building is already visible from the top of the Rockefeller Center observatory (today even more, since the picture is dated july 31st)

This is an extract from a very large panorama, found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/58158925@N02/9402440199/

[NYSEE]

Originally Posted by mdsayh1

You guys are being too literal in your response to J'orker. He's calling the concrete and glass cheap because that is its perceived value aesthetically. He's not referring to the actual cost. No one care about that. It's the fact that a tall square is being erected as the soon to be tallest building in NY and the simple design does not really inspire much. There are so many heightmongers on this forum that are quick to excuse poor design simply for height because they are desperate to see something of interest happening locally in NY. I live in NY and love this city but that doesn't change the fact that far more interesting projects are happening globally outside of NY and we are clinging on to projects like this because they break some sort of height barrier in the city.

Im sorry but whats far more interesting than the largest skyscraper boom this city has ever seen? The amount of projects happening out number most cities leaving plenty of interesting development to follow. Nobody is clinging onto anything... its just interesting seeing a slim 1400 ft tower pop up in a city alot of members are from.

[bigreach]

I dont see anything "cheap" with the bldg. I think every render inside and out, have looked quite elegant..

[McSky]

Originally Posted by mdsayh1

You guys are being too literal in your response to J'orker. He's calling the concrete and glass cheap because that is its perceived value aesthetically. He's not referring to the actual cost. No one care about that. It's the fact that a tall square is being erected as the soon to be tallest building in NY and the simple design does not really inspire much. There are so many heightmongers on this forum that are quick to excuse poor design simply for height because they are desperate to see something of interest happening locally in NY. I live in NY and love this city but that doesn't change the fact that far more interesting projects are happening globally outside of NY and we are clinging on to projects like this because they break some sort of height barrier in the city.

I think the responses hit the spot.

And I'm more interested in 432 Park than, say, Shanghai Tower, although I like that one as well.