When you are 111 W 57th, and the tower across the street looks CaCa; then ‘fine design’ can really shine.
Central Park Tower is the perfect foil to highlight some of the near by towers that have some very refined design features: in that sense this ‘big blue bore’ serves a noble and useful purpose.
We need ‘building standard’ architecture and other such nondescript buildings to help establish a visual baseline for the occasional architectural icon to really stand out from the mundane; so I see the the boring CPT as a blessing is disguise.
I respectfully disagree but not strongly. Every architectural gem is worth the price of admission. But not to worry infoshare. I doubt there will be a shortage of mundane buildings.
CPT an “architectural gem” - I disagree, but not strongly. The Architectural Design of that building rates as average or generic; to say Central Park Tower is a GEM seems to me an odd assessment - and I believe most ‘critics’ would think so too. That, however, would require a vote…
There certainly will not be a shortage of mundane looking buildings: your ‘spot on’ about that much.
I agree, but that leads me to opine on the ROI/ Profitability when it comes to doing exceptional architecture.
There is a great cost in time/money to achieve that architectural excelence that is ‘sleek and graceful’ - the question is however - is this project a financial success.
I will venture to say that CPT is the least ‘distinctive looking’ tower amongst all the other luxury towers in the vicinity; yet, the most financially successful.
Interesting questions, but, definitive answers are ultimately unattainable.
There’s other quirks in the massing of this tower that make it look like they didn’t really take a lot of time in designing it. Look at the setbacks on the cantilever section on the northern face of the tower: the lower setback occurs right above the mechanical floor gap, but the higher setback comes after one floor of non-mechanicals above the mechanical gap. It’s inconsistent and weird.
I usually agree with you infoshare, but I have to say that 220 CPS is the most financially successful. Which brings me back to RAMSA’s success in the luxury market.
I discussed with @Skyalign earlier about some of our thoughts and ratings on Miami and NYC skyscrapers. For CPT, I stated I gave it a 6/10. But my rating is really in between 6 and 7, I really do enjoy how the cladding can look on extremely sunny days. Especially when the vertical rows of metal glisten in the late afternoon, but the sense of some blandness is present. But this is a well executed modern building I believe, in my observation on the towers massing back in April last year, you can see I pointed out what looked like intentional curves present.
I believe we should still give this one some time. I just cannot wait for all of that blue tape to all come off, it’s so close. The whole exterior of the building is just about complete and the lights are starting to come on, those mechanical level lights tying together with 432 Park Avenue the future lighting on top of 111 West 57 will look great in the Midtown Manhattan skyline. By next year these towers will look just like the renderings, like 56 Leonard, 53W53, and Hudson Yards Phase 1
If this weren’t so skinny, I’d assume it was an office building; it has that kind of cold, soul-less look to it. It completely lacks the warmth that architects usually bring to residential projects with brick or stone, curves, or some other design flair.
This is also partly on the developer. AS+GG has always done work like this. Tall, shiny, cold, blue towers. This was the aesthetic that the developer was probably looking for. I agree with rbrome - it lacks warmth. Doesn’t help that 220 CPS is right in front of it lol.
SHoP’s proposal, personally, would have been much more iconic and the different use of materials would have been refreshing.
That Hearst Tower would have been stunning at a much greater height; Ideally twice the height, or at least 50% higher than that ‘stump’.
There was a request for a variance or some such attempt to get approval to go much higher, and I vaguely recall the rejection had something to do with M Bloomberg when he was mayor. I am not sure: but that building design, and location, would have been a fine look in that area skyline.
