I need a drink after watching that. That was one of the grosses things I’ve seen in NYC and I once saw a guy vomit out of a third floor Williamsburg window onto a bunch of kids on the sidewalk.
2 Likes
What an absolute GIFT to NYC!
7 Likes
Will they be able to seek approval by the mayor before de Blasio leaves in November?
1 Like
Even a “Karen” is bi#%ing about skyscrapers too
6 Likes
These are the same morons who opposed Amazon. That stupidity didn’t end well!
2 Likes
We should show these people the monstrosity that is the Penn 15 proposal so they can get some perspective.
2 Likes
Some how these people will like that but not this one
1 Like
I might get hate for this, but I can say this. While I’m loving the crown and the base for the building, the main form of the building in between the top and bottom just seems lazy to me. I feel like the design can be way better, yet the size of the building is pretty substantial. I’m not completely sure how I feel about this one yet
6 Likes
How dare you say about this tower. Nah I’m just kidding lol
4 Likes
i agree, you can tell there was significant thought put into the crown and base, but the rest - the actual functional part of the building - seems to just be filling in the ~1500’ gap
3 Likes
For the angled parts of the building that shift to a smaller floor plate, they should’ve crossed the beams on those angled parts similarly to 425 Park. I think that would look way better
3 Likes
While I still think this is a fantastic and near-perfect design, that is a really great idea that would make it even better TK2000. However, the problem of how to design a non-boring “shaft” of a skyscraper isn’t unique to this tower. Frankly, I’d even say that MOST skyscrapers have boring midsections. Look at 1 WTC or Shanghai Tower. The majority of those buildings is just featureless glass that is either angled (1 WTC) or torqued (Shanghai Tower). I’d say this building, with the dramatic metal columns running up the length of the building, does a better job of being “not boring” than those two. In a way it reminds me of Foster’s 270 and 425 Park in that the external columns serve both a functional and aesthetic purpose: they allow for larger floor plates while breaking up the monotony of the facade. I certainly prefer it to the horizontal stripes on One Vandy but that’s just my opinion. It’s very hard to design a skyscraper that’s interesting from top to bottom, though I must say NYC is lucky in that we have several buildings that do a fine job at this: Steinway, 9 DeKalb, 53W53, and Gehry’s Spruce Street tower.
13 Likes
From a quick look at social media, comments on instagram are almost all negative, comments on Reddit are almost all positive, and Twitter seems to be split (though the negative reactions are getting more likes). Most of the negative comments are focused on the base and facade, which I find surprising considering that seems to be everyone’s favorite part here and on SSP (mine included). You’ve also got the people saying GCT will be “walled in” (which already happened decades ago) and the Bird Botherers (my nickname for people who oppose any glass building due to bird collisions).
5 Likes
This is a fair criticism, I think. I personally think it could be too busy with cross bracing, but would need a visual to confirm.
45 Broad Street had periodic cross bracing to bring interest to the mid section (but the base and crown wasn’t as dramatic either, so it works in that situation)
6 Likes
This parcel sits 196 ft above sea level (Depending on the corner, 200’, but let’s say 196 ft).
From a distance, at sea level, we are looking at a tower that has a perceived magnitude of 1,842’.
This is more than Central Park Tower, with its elevation of 197’ for a total of 1,747’.
1 WTC, actually sits 1m or 3 ft above sea level, so when you factor in 1,792’ to the tip, plus AMSL… 1796’.
So 175 Park will be the tower that has a profound skyline impact, and the tallest all round as perceived up close (due to its bulk) but also a far. Unlike the slender, this one has the fat factor.
THIS IS ALSO WHY the ESB looks much taller from afar and has retained such a dominance until its brothers and sisters came by. Because the elevation… the topography of Manhattan, acts like a sort of added bonus for height/bulk. Reason why the skyline is so imposing, especially from a distance. This is going to look (175 Park), amazing from portions of Queens closer to a 0’ AMSL.
8 Likes
The amount of negative criticism for this is crazy. People need to be made more aware of how much money is going to be invested in improvements to city infrastructure as well as more greenspace, without even talking about this gorgeous tower! They can’t complain about city transportation and then also deny the only people looking to fund it 
The negative comments are the same arguments made against the city’s most popular landmarks. I just hope it doesn’t lead to any changes from the developers down the line.
4 Likes
I know! people suck! there was less criticism for 432 Park! critics of development seem to be more happy with mediocrity!
4 Likes
Not surprisingly, the best article on this icon is by Yimby.
4 Likes