NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,575 FT | 86 FLOORS

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I would also like to see renderings from this angle...



https://www.instagram.com/p/CDtW8WvpAjt/

[JMKeynes]

https://therealdeal.com/2021/02/16/s...0m-for-a-spac/

[Submariner]

How do they get the crane down from there?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Submariner

How do they get the crane down from there?

That's what they bring in Kong for.

Originally Posted by rgarri4

Love it!

[NYguy]

Just a few quotes from the clueless morons commenting on the Dezeen piece....



https://www.dezeen.com/2021/02/16/ab...mments-update/

pierre a varreon • 14 hours ago • edited
Does SOM means Standard Of Mediocrity? Just ridiculous outsized structure. The wrong answer at the wrong location.

Richard Scherr • 4 days ago • edited
An absolute horror. It continues the destructive scale of Vanderbilt Tower. Let SOM do the below grade improvement, hire another architect for the tower.

evan schwartz • 4 days ago • edite

Fast forward I just can't see how anyone in SOM's office can justifiably make a valid argument for "context" with this building's design. I have always appreciate creative design thinking but this tower is a prime example of out-of-control financial greed at the expense of "context".

One can argue that a new building to replace the old Trump Hyatt (Commodore) Hotel is desirable and will greatly improve the subway station beneath but at what cost to those of us who live in NYC. Come on guys and gals at SOM you can do a lot better than this

1 Vanderbilt already felt very imposing on the opposite corner, now adding this massive tower on the other side is going to make entering Grand Central feel very confining.

The Trump Hyatt may be "overbearing" and "overcrowd the pavement" (I don't think that's true, it has the same street frontage as almost every other building in NYC, right up to the property line), but the set backs of the floors above do a lot more for reducing the mass of the building at the sidewalk than the silly uplift at 1 Vanderbilt or strange four corner posts thing this tower seems to be attempting.

Troels Steenholdt Heiredal • 5 days ago • edited
The only thing this building relates to is One Vanderbilt, which was a mistake in the first place, so two wrongs doesn't make a right. Whatever you're proposing to put inside this build, the Hudson Yards is empty, put it over there and leave our Chrysler building alone. This monster would take the few views that remain after One Vanderbilt away from the public, robbing all of us of a historic view and dominating the Chrysler, which would only stand just above half the size of this.

Please go ahead and redo the subway connection, but please don't use this as an excuse to steal the Chrysler. And in all honesty, spending million on the pathways for the Grand Central subway connection would yet again direct money away from the people that depend on the subway system and need investments in the outer stations, service improvements, and modernisation

Charles Dilworth • 5 days ago • edited
I've now seen this published several times. Always with no images of the overall building. The message: "we're hiding something", or something(s). Well, at least its not like its on an important site in an important city. They'll probably keep publishing those renderings after the building is finished too.

Vandra • 5 days ago • edited
I'm sure it's no accident they aren't showing this project in relation to its neighbors. It's literally across the street and almost twice the height as the Chrysler building. I found this image from SOM and you can see how nobody in New Jersey and the west side of Manhattan will ever see Chrysler again. I clipped the image and added the arrow as Chrysler is so small in comparison.

I'm not anti-development in NYC but Chrysler and Empire State are the landmark towers that deserve some breathing room.

HeywoodFloyd • 6 days ago • edited
I'm usually pro-development, but this is too much. I don't see where all of the air rights for such a massive tower could have come from, it's bigger than 1 Vanderbilt.

BillH11103 • 6 days ago • edited
It's a perfect building... for Dubai. Not for NYC, and certainly not Midtown. There are already enough ugly tall buildings. Soon, the great Chrysler Building will be invisible, along with the Empire State.

Mark Leydorf • 6 days ago • edited
Something missing in those drawings... Oh, I know! The poor Chrysler Building, which the SOM project will bury forever

Mark Leydorf • 6 days ago • edited
I don't know how you can write about this obscenity without mentioning that it will utterly eclipse the adjacent Chrysler Building — one of the city's two or three most beloved buildings — in the skyline. SOM doesn't even have the courage to even include Van Alen's tower in its contextual renderings; I imagine they are too ashamed. How can they claim to be nodding to the city's original art deco skyscrapers with a building that buries one of them completely?

There are dozens of economic reasons to oppose this ill-conceived project — let's hope it's rejected after public hearings. It's a vicious attack on the world's architectural heritage. Might as well drop this tower into Piazza San Marco or nestle it among the pyramids at Giza

Morons, each and every one.

[Busy Bee]

As criticism, they're proposterous.
As satire, they're brilliant.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by busy bee

as criticism, they're proposterous.
As satire, they're brilliant.

LOL.

The stupidity of some of the criticism I've seen. There was one article, where this guy responded with a lengthy diatribe of why it would be impossible to build this skyscraper, mainly that they would have to demolish the Grand Hyatt first - over an active subway station and train terminal, and then build the skyscraper - over that active subway station and train terminal. And I'm thinking, what planet did he just land in from? Does he not know we took down Penn Station and rebuilt a skyscraper and an arena above it - all while service continued uninterrupted below? Has he not seen what they did at the World Trade Center, not once, but twice - building over the active PATH terminal? Has he not witnessed the mighty Pan Am (Met Life for some) as it straddles Park Avenue, built above Grand Central (and it's many neighbors)? I just don't know. I have no idea where these people come from.

[Dylan Dude]

Those people complaining need to leave NYC. It's not what they want it to be and it never will, it will only get worse for them. Also i love pissing people off who get mad over stupid reasons, so i find joy in knowing how much theyll suffer as each new super tall gets build haha

[pico44]

Originally Posted by NYguy

This base detail emphasizes the best part of the design. What a beautiful compliment to our beautiful train terminal. I can’t imagine a better tower lobby/footprint for this particular spot. Along with Manhattan West, SOM is just killing it right now.

[Manhattan Man]

Originally Posted by NYguy

LOL.

The stupidity of some of the criticism I've seen. There was one article, where this guy responded with a lengthy diatribe of why it would be impossible to build this skyscraper, mainly that they would have to demolish the Grand Hyatt first - over an active subway station and train terminal, and then build the skyscraper - over that active subway station and train terminal. And I'm thinking, what planet did he just land in from? Does he not know we took down Penn Station and rebuilt a skyscraper and an arena above it - all while service continued uninterrupted below? Has he not seen what they did at the World Trade Center, not once, but twice - building over the active PATH terminal? Has he not witnessed the mighty Pan Am (Met Life for some) as it straddles Park Avenue, built above Grand Central (and it's many neighbors)? I just don't know. I have no idea where these people come from.

Shhhh! Nobody tell him what's happening at 270 Park Avenue...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Dylan Dude

Those people complaining need to leave NYC. It's not what they want it to be and it never will, it will only get worse for them. Also i love pissing people off who get mad over stupid reasons, so i find joy in knowing how much theyll suffer as each new super tall gets build haha

I don't even think they're all from New York. Because if they are, that means they've never seen the skyline. It's like some of the complaints I see even here when someone says a building will block another building out of existence. But if it's tall enough to be seen now, it will still be seen. The skyline isn't usually seen from perfect vantage points, where the cross streets all align perfectly.

Originally Posted by pico44

This base detail emphasizes the best part of the design. What a beautiful compliment to our beautiful train terminal. I can’t imagine a better tower lobby/footprint for this particular spot. Along with Manhattan West, SOM is just killing it right now.

It really boggles my mind that some people don't think the base fits. I think they did an excellent job, considering the need to respect the terminal visibility and design, as well as allow daylight into the lobby and the terminal itself.

Originally Posted by Manhattan Man

Shhhh! Nobody tell him what's happening at 270 Park Avenue...

Exactly. These people are in some kind of bubble. A tall building in midtown? Preposterous!

[jackster99]

Had these people been alive when the Chrysler building was first unveiled/proposed, they would have railed against it too, saying it would block the view of god knows what, probably the East River. There's no reasoning with these types, they should at least be honest with themselves, they don't want to see any new buildings rise, regardless of the reason they give.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by NYguy

LOL.

The stupidity of some of the criticism I've seen. There was one article, where this guy responded with a lengthy diatribe of why it would be impossible to build this skyscraper, mainly that they would have to demolish the Grand Hyatt first - over an active subway station and train terminal, and then build the skyscraper - over that active subway station and train terminal. And I'm thinking, what planet did he just land in from? Does he not know we took down Penn Station and rebuilt a skyscraper and an arena above it - all while service continued uninterrupted below? Has he not seen what they did at the World Trade Center, not once, but twice - building over the active PATH terminal? Has he not witnessed the mighty Pan Am (Met Life for some) as it straddles Park Avenue, built above Grand Central (and it's many neighbors)? I just don't know. I have no idea where these people come from.

if only it was just clueless nimbys — unfortunately its more sinister than that. a lot of these kinds of posts come courtesy of russian military trolling and other foreign influences to push dissention in america at every turn. not to get all conspiracy, but a good part of the responses on internet forums and social media is fake. amazon is the latest in the news for this as they are fighting fake reviews. for low rent versions, check out clik farm pics for fun.

anyhoo, back to this magnificent tower plan ... !

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jackster99

Had these people been alive when the Chrysler building was first unveiled/proposed, they would have railed against it too, saying it would block the view of god knows what, probably the East River. There's no reasoning with these types, they should at least be honest with themselves, they don't want to see any new buildings rise, regardless of the reason they give.

If I recall correctly, the Chrysler wasn't received well in it's time. But isn't it interesting, that as we celebrate the Chrysler Building's centennial (1930), the modern version of it will grace us. We'll see if 175 Park gets upstaged by another giant. Whatever the case, as it is with the Chrysler, this beauty will stand the test of time.

[rgarri4]

Yeah. I'm sure there was a time when the tallest buildings of the 20s looked out of scale or "too much" and "destructive to the skyline" to some.




Source:

[NYguy]

Here's just one example where all 3 towers, the Chrysler, Vanderbilt, and 175 Park will shine.



https://www.instagram.com/p/CLZ-m-iAEPs/

[NYguy]

The LPC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday of next week. A few more looks at the base from the LPC presentation, some we've already seen...



1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.



15.



16.



17.



18.



19.



20.



21.



22.



23.

[Xing Lin]

The matte finish is a bit disappointing, this tower would have looked incredible in stainless steel or something similarly reflective. Does anyone know if painted metal is a specific material term of if it's literal paint? I know some metal buildings whose paint coat started flaking considerably after ten years or so.

[Jordan de California]

Just when I had thought SOM designed absolutely awesome stuff...

...they prove me right

[Visionist]

Originally Posted by jackster99

Had these people been alive when the Chrysler building was first unveiled/proposed, they would have railed against it too, saying it would block the view of god knows what, probably the East River. There's no reasoning with these types, they should at least be honest with themselves, they don't want to see any new buildings rise, regardless of the reason they give.

That's what I posted over on dezeen or another of those interchangeable sites in response to all the buffoonery. I'm sure they downvoted my comment a couple dozen times whilst knowing I'm right.