NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (217 W 57th St.) | 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS


#1634


_RJS7979 by Richard Silver, on Flickr


_RJS7983 by Richard Silver, on Flick


#1635

CPT is really something else in terms of roof height. It’s almost out of place in America. If you look at this list, it will nearly fit into top 10 tallest in the world if you focus exclusively on buildings that stop at the roof. This would obviously exclude 1WTC and Taipei 101 for example. Definitely going to be impressive when it tops out.


#1636


Source: https://lynceans.org/category/architecture/ (adapted from New York Yimby)


#1637

Indeed a significant bump over the height of 1 WTCs roof.


#1638

I appreciate buildings like this that are truly tall in roof height over those with elongated poles posing as “spires.”


#1639

To be fair to 1 WTC and David Childs, the spire for the building was supposed to be much more significant than the dinky found-at-a-garage-sale thing we have today. In fact, I think the early iteration below would have been truly iconic.
image


#1640

I remember being around 5 or 6 seeing the new site plan for the first time and being hyped over the new site, especially the new tower 1. By the end of construction I was disappointed, specifically by the overly elongated… abomination, on top.

Did they budget cut the large ring on it too? it looks very different


#1641

Yes, the original spire design was definitely better - but I still think it was a cheap shot. In my opinion, spires are completely ok to count as the official height, but if they are designed in such a way that as the building tapers up, the reduction in footprint decreases gradually and not abruptly. So with 1 WTC, it goes from a massive footprint of 200 feet squared ( approximately) to instantly changing to a stick on the top. Whether this stick was a structural spiral or an antennae doesn’t matter. It just stops and starts something new with a massively decreased footprint. If you look at something like the Burj Khalifa, it tapers so naturally and gradually that even though the top is just a narrow spire it still looks natural and represents the full height of the structure.


#1642

I remember reading one of the reason they decided to abandon the white skin on the antenna was there would be no real way to clean/repair it if anything happened. Also, you know, value engineering.


#1643

They should have made the roof height 1776 feet and not dragged it up with their stick.

I see it as bulls**t that this building has nearly 200 feet on it but it can be claimed as taller because of something that’s no better than a bunch of 20 dollar bins from walmart superglued together to be “taller.”


#1644

I saw on some documentary that the spire shook too much in the wind test. The spire structure that’s up now is the same exact structure that was planned to hold the fiberglass panels


#1645

Exactly. They should have made the roof height 1776 feet and put a real 225 foot spire for a total height of 2001 feet.


#1646

In wind tests the radome covering made the antenna shake significantly (even in low speed winds). It wasn’t a budgeting decision


#1647

Good point, but I’d still prefer they didn’t do what they did with the bare skeleton it is now and redesigned it or something like such


#1648

#1649

My fav part of this photo is St. Patrick’s nestled between all those towers. Especially crazy when you look at old photos of Rockefeller going up.


#1650


#1651

The silver color looks promising so far.


#1652

That cantilever is unreal!


#1653

From today: