boring this thread isn’t… you can also delete it
1 Like
Uhhh, just because this thread has no updates yet, does not mean this needs to be deleted
5 Likes
Peebles dumped David Adjaye for their submission to the revised RFP and hired OMA
https://peeblescorp.com/project/affirmation-tower
The development team is comprised of The Peebles Corporation, McKissack & McKissack, Exact Capital, and Witkoff. Affirmation Tower is poised to become the world’s tallest building owned by majority Black-owned companies and the tallest building ever built by a woman-led contractor. Designed by acclaimed OMA Architects, the proposed 1,400,000 square foot mixed-use development will encompass mixed-income residential, convention center and lifestyle hospitality, and retail offerings, alongside extensive community spaces, an observation deck, and The National Civil Rights Museum, in collaboration with the NAACP, the country’s longest-standing civil liberties organization.
No mention of the height, I’ll still reserve my final judgment until the full tower is revealed but I still dont think this is worthy of the location, I would like to see the other entries…
16 Likes
What a downgrade.
It went from being something interesting to being 432 Park Ave in a 425 Park Ave skin.
Nothing ambitious survives this city…
3 Likes
I thought CPT and Hearst Tower had a baby but your description in particular to 425 Park is more accurate.
3 Likes
Oh. Yuck.
3 Likes
This is a previous OMA concept rendering for 425 Park avenue that is stunning. It may have been a bit too, stunning or radical a design: but I give him credit for trying to push the envelope.
Perhaps he needed to go a bit more subdued, practical & buildable with this design at 418 11th in order to get the project. Whatever the reason for this modest - but tasteful - design; it is still a big improvement over the original proposal.
2 Likes
I personally really feel attached to the first design, it was relatively thought provoking and “different” in the sense that there was a textured façade and some sort of finesse in the details (the motifs in the railings and the general metalwork), with that said I don’t mind this revised design. I would really like to see more, especially the base to give my final opinion. I wish the other developers bidding would release their renderings as well.
4 Likes
That’s true, even though I didn’t care for the initial scheme for the proposal I did like the textured depth of the previous facade, even though it was still on a single planed surface. But that was the only thing I liked about it, I generally didn’t like the form nor the cantilevered aspect. The overall massing wasn’t respective of it’s surrounding context.
I too would like to see the bottom half/base of this new OMA proposal, it looks like it’s reversed the massing and it gets smaller as it goes up. What’s really weird is that the floor plates looks so narrow so the core would take up an incredibly large area of the plates, the top volume looks square in plan. The renders do give an insight into how large the transfer structure (the darkened portions in the transitional areas) for such a form would be.
While I still don’t care for this design, I really want to see the rest of the entries, it’s still clear Peebles is trying to publicize their entry.
I think if each segment were alternating direction that would look more interesting. Who knows, perhaps the base has another twist.
Nice!!!
Welp I’ve kept coming back to this thread all day and staring at the rendering because something about it was annoying me. Beyond it looking like a slow-motion capture of someone getting punched in the gut, it also reminds me of goatse. And now I can’t unsee it. That’s a little part of ancient Internet lore from 25 years ago. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, please don’t look it up unless you want your day ruined. 
I too would now like to see other submissions for this plot because this ain’t it.
2 Likes
Mmmmm, no (I have it at 1650’ which is accurate to the render, even though renders sometimes never show the perspective correctly, which doesn’t exclude the new render, but it’s similar to the original scheme’s height in my version regardless)
Got access to my modeling software for a short period (a week lol)
My interpretation of the render trying to position the camera as close as I could (using my imagination for the portion out of view in the official render) The real render doesn’t really depict the tower in the right place.
17 Likes
I’m probably the only one here, but I like it.
7 Likes
I like it as well. It doesn’t look like its going to fall over from being too top-heavy.
5 Likes
None of them are going to fall over from being top heavy, because none of them are. All of the weight is in the core
1 Like
Thats not really how that works but outside of that the comment wasn’t saying it would fall over from being too top heavy, it said it looked like it would, there’s a difference in how something works/acts vs how it’s perceived. But to say that there wasnt more weight at the top in the previous iteration is just not right, because there was (it was literally top heavy).
This design may have cantilevers (though angled so the weight is distributed better) but that doesnt stop the fact that is doesnt look top heavy as the other scheme did and was.
8 Likes
Well it depends on how it’s built, whether it has a concrete core, etc. But essentially is how it works for a large skyscraper with a concrete core. Most of the weight will be from that not the outside frame, as I understand it. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I mean okay. That’s silly but okay.
1 Like
The material is not really a factor, if there is more mass/weight on the top than there is on the bottom, the building is top heavy regardless of what material the core is made of/composed of. Yes, “cores” are heavy, but cores are also involved much more in lateral loads than vertical loads, which the columns and beams have more bearing on, that is why their (a core’s) weight is negligible if there is more mass on top than below that surrounds it. The discussion isnt about what part/component of the building weighs more, its about how much more material is located where mass/weight and the distribution of it across a larger area.
The comments saying the original iteration was top heavy and it looked like it would fall over are not silly, again thats something that can be perceived, just like someone can equally perceive that a radio antenna tower that’s 2000’ tall looks like it could just blow over with a small wind but it doesn’t. Or someone saying a chair looks uncomfortable but it really is comfortable , perceiving how something can be is different then saying it will/is something.
7 Likes