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

[JMKeynes]

I prefer the new design.

I am not a NY booster, because I've spent virtually my whole life in the NYC area.

This and 350 Park will be new icons for the Greatest City in the World.

[NYguy]

More of the transit improvements ....


1



2



3



4





Current configuration at Grand Central

5



Added improvments

6



7




Current configuration at the subway station, and how it will be reconfigured and opened up...


8



9



10





Connection to Eastside Access (Grand Central Madison) and the lower GC concourse...

11



12



13




14



15



16



17

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Comparing some of the changes we've seen so far. Early on, I wasn't sure if I looked the newer look better, but a comparison made it clear for me which one was the standout design.

I'm going to have to disagree and I'm not in any way saying that just to be a contrarian. I think the tower does look better losing the one segment leaving a taller upper setback segment. But I find the [apparent] decision to reduce and stagger/offset the vertical columns to be a negative. The split forks at the setbacks draw attention to them that in my opinion is unwarranted and unneeded and ultimately reduces the sheer verticality achieved with the impressive ground to crown straight vertical columns of the previous version. I also think the straight diagonal angle of the forked columns has no relationship to the radius curves of the columns terminating at the base and at the crown. The tower is less cohesive as a design with this update. The reduction of vertical columns has reduced the texture of the massive edifice to its detriment. I think the previous design played better off of the Chrysler. The updated crown does not have the elegant proportion and "sweep" the previous crown had due to the reduction in vertical columns. It now looks compressed and stumpy. The previous crown was superior in its beauty.

So no, I don't think we are looking at an improvement here unfortunately.

[Busy Bee]

Those are the transit slides I was looking for. Thanks for posting NYguy.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm going to have to disagree and I'm not in any way saying that just to be a contrarian. I think the tower does look better losing the one segment leaving a taller upper setback segment. But I find the [apparent] decision to reduce and stagger/offset the vertical columns to be a negative. The split forks at the setbacks draw attention to them that in my opinion is unwarranted and unneeded and ultimately reduces the sheer verticality achieved with the impressive ground to crown

That's one of the main reasons why the design looks better. The setbacks fit the crown. The base, while what most people will see from the street, won't be visible on the vast cityscape of skyscrapers. So what you would otherwise have is a line of vertical columns rising to the crown, with no hint of anything special to come. Not to mention it fits better next to the Chrysler.

Likewise, I think the reduction in number of crowns leads to a much more pronounced version of it, with details more visible from a distance. It's an overall better design, and that becomes more apparent if you remove both crowns.

[Busy Bee]

But the straight forking of the columns has zero relationship to the graceful curves at the top and bottom.

And I know we are talking subjectivity here but I don't know how anyone could say the previous crown wasn't more attractive. The arch produced by the crossing radii was distinctive. The new crown barely registers as arched at that termination point. It no longer reads as the awesome deco meets gothic gesture of the former.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

But the straight forking of the columns has zero relationship to the graceful curves at the top and bottom.

And I know we are talking subjectivity here but I don't know how anyone could say the previous crown wasn't more attractive.

The crown itself curves. It's not as straight as you seem to think it will be. I thought the arch in the previous design would be the better look, but not so. The current iteration of the crown's design makes for a more refined look, visible from a greater area. Take the Chrysler Building's crown for example. Now if we double the arches, it's not really the same crown anymore.


Anyway, a comparison of the two largest towers going up in Midtown East. These buildings, while different, have a lot of similarity, particularly how they rise up from street level. Both are "elevated" above, giving more room for public space below, even as they maintain the ability to create the larger floorplates the footprint provides.

[artspook]

(From above) . .
An idea of what a thinner design would look like...
- NYguy
Yeah. Now yer talking

[Xing Lin]

I've edited the latest design into the first rendering we saw of the original proposal:

[JMKeynes]

Very impressive, Xing. Can you add the new design for 350 Park also?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by artspook

(From above) . .
An idea of what a thinner design would look like...
- NYguy
Yeah. Now yer talking

Imagine that as Central Park Tower.

Originally Posted by Xing Lin

I've edited the latest design into the first rendering we saw of the original proposal:

https://i.imgur.com/07xzXxZ.jpg

Thanks! Nice to get a proper 270 in there. (A slight adjustment on the setbacks will match the renderings)



More images...


https://www.fr.freelancer.com/u/nguy...alize-10409004

[colemonkee]

I agree with this take. I prefer the new design as it accentuates the setbacks much better, but the design overall would be more cohesive if the diagonal columns at the setbacks had a similar curve as the crown. Still, this tower is just amazing all around and we'll all be lucky if it's built as currently rendered.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

But the straight forking of the columns has zero relationship to the graceful curves at the top and bottom.

And I know we are talking subjectivity here but I don't know how anyone could say the previous crown wasn't more attractive. The arch produced by the crossing radii was distinctive. The new crown barely registers as arched at that termination point. It no longer reads as the awesome deco meets gothic gesture of the former.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I agree with this take. I prefer the new design as it accentuates the setbacks much better, but the design overall would be more cohesive if the diagonal columns at the setbacks had a similar curve as the crown. Still, this tower is just amazing all around and we'll all be lucky if it's built as currently rendered.

My understanding of the design is that it's curved on the corners. Here's a graphic of the older design that appears to show it...







You can see it somewhat on the base...

[JMKeynes]

Iconic!!!

Can you imagine what the GCT area will look like in a few years with:

1. 175 Park
2. 270 Park
3. 350 Park
4. 520 Fifth
5. 570 Fifth
6. 341 Madison
7. 415 Madison

[The New York Lion]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Iconic!!!

Can you imagine what the GCT area will look like in a few years with:

1. 175 Park
2. 270 Park
3. 350 Park
4. 520 Fifth
5. 570 Fifth
6. 341 Madison
7. 415 Madison

335 Madison, Hotel Roosevelt, and 405 Park waiting in the wings.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by The New York Lion

335 Madison, Hotel Roosevelt, and 405 Park waiting in the wings.

I forgot about 405-417 Park!

[mrnyc]

yesterday --

[NYguy]

It seems like we're constantly running from one big project to the next, but this can't come down fast enough for me. When it's shrouded in black for the demolition, it won't look much different
than it does now. But the mess of construction will be welcome.
















JANUARY 28, 2023



















Lexington Passage






Graybar Passage

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

So no, I don't think we are looking at an improvement here unfortunately.

Crap I think you’re right. Initially I was drawn to the more recent rendering, but I think that’s because of the more dramatically proportioned setbacks and— actually—the quality of the image. As usual I agree with Cole, either way it’s gonna be a beaut.

[JMKeynes]

Financial Times