Use: Residential, Office, Museum
Developer: FJ Sciame (likely to change)
Architect: Santiago Calatrava (may change)
http://www.80southstreet.net/ (old)

Even though this project was completely approved a long time ago, it has not been fully financed yet, but it is still alive and there’s still a good chance that something will happen at the site.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3115/capturejg2.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4006/338838ep7.jpg

Santiago Calatrava has a great desire to get this skyscraper built. Each condo in this tower costs $30 million. Picture the new Lower Manhattan with all of her new skyscrapers, and now this.

80 South Street is far from dead, though the first design may be gone.

The NEW Prop (as of April 2008):

http://i30.tinypic.com/9pnlef.jpg

starting 29 million, no thanks :rofl:

but design looks unique

Start saving up.

anybody knows when is construction going to start (if its going to start)? it is so original, I can't wait to see it started and finished!

Calatrava is going to show us another beauty, one for two of the most beautiful skyscrapercities in america.

It has been approved for two years. The problem is getting people to buy into it. You can't just built something like this unless you're sure that people will live there. For all we know, nothing will happen for another two years until they find some people who are rich and want to live in this amazing tower. I'm not sure if anyone is serious about buying a condo yet.

It has been approved for two years. The problem is getting people to buy into it. You can't just built something like this unless you're sure that people will live there. For all we know, nothing will happen for another two years until they find some people who are rich and want to live in this amazing tower. I'm not sure of anyone is serious about buying a condo yet.

Do hope you will be wrong about the two years..:)
I couldn't stand the wait....

that projects been in the planning for like the past 5 years.

in Australia, most residential towers require 60% sales before construction begins.
in sydney if nothing happens for 2 years, the DA lapses and developers have to relodge application.
this is a great project.

what would the top one be worth? im assuming they're all the same size from looking at the photos

what would the top one be worth? im assuming they're all the same size from looking at the photos

Each unit has 4 floors. I think the sq footage is 10000 feet but I could be wrong.

i would LOVE to see this built but ehh i have my doubts....i think it needs more publicity and marketing personally

I may be hanged but I hate this building! It just does not go with the classic LM feel, the art deco, the 70s boxes, and soon to be the new WTC, and all of a sudden there's this thing sticking out which looks like legos put together by a two year old. Just had to get that out of me.

can't stay stuck in the pre 00's forever now :)

starting 29 million, no thanks :rofl:

LOL yes it's certainly not the cheapest apartments for sale atm. The construction of the building probably doesn't even cost that much.

I absolutely adore this design. When I first saw it a year and a half ago I was blown away. It is a fantastic concept and such a unique building! Nobody has ever tried anything like this before and if I had 50 mil I definitely know where I'd spend 29 of it. :lol:


Btw, Ebola do you happen to have any floorplans of the building?

is it dynamic ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzQazjw-4jI&NR=1


with that price.. :D

I don't like it! It looks like Shanghai, too frisky!
NY need more straight towers, not a toy tower!

It's good, but it doesn't suit Manhattan's style at all. It would look better somewhere in Europe I think.

I seriously like this structure for some reason. I guess it's because of its uniqueness.

Yeah it doesn't blend well with NY's other buildings but its seriously better than having the repetitive same style.:)

I hope this gets built, i love it!

Horrid.

they are going to do it... I don't like it for NYC

i love it, and i hope NY will get that tower

awful

wow, that will destroy ny's skyline.
ugliest "thing" i have ever seen...

horrible, pls don't build it, no no no!:bash::ohno:

I love this thing! i hated it the first time I saw it last year but its completely grown on me. i hope it finally gets built

amazing how people either love it or hate it. I kind of agree it doesnt fit well for NYC but I can get used to it.

Have any drawings made it into the mass media? I can imagine a public outcry over something like this.

Wow, it looks totally amazing.

One of the most original skyscrapers ever designed, I'm glad they'll build it!

It would look much better upside down.

:bash:
:banana:

Wow!!! I expect for this... it's fantastic.

I wish I had $30 million.

very futuristic!
its amazing and i love it!

It's Ok but please, don't build that in NYC. Just build it in Malmö (or let's wait till there are some colonies in Mars, we'll see then...). Sorry, it's just I'm soooo tired of Calatrava and his projects...

The renderings are generally not encouraging a positive opinion in my mind, but I think it could actually look quite interesting in the round, so to speak.

Gotta try and see past the main flaw with the full view renderings, i.e., the windows. They just don't look realistic at all.

I LOVE this building! Get it built get it built! I want one of these cubes so friggin bad. I want the 5th one up.

I want one of those cubes too!

4 stories and a patio in the sky... $30 Million sounds like a bargain.

The architecture is beautiful, I love the height, and it'll add some uniqueness to the lower Manhattan Skyline. Lower Manhattan will glitter with the new WTC, Ratner's Gehry tower, and this!

^You're forgetting about 99 Church Street and a lot of other 600'+ towers.

Am I alone when I say to hell with this building?

Ban it, it's a piece of Picasso-ish crap. If they build it, the Americans will have finally turned into the British skyscraper idiots who allow for all sorts of messed up buildings go up.

horrible, i don't like it!.

Constructionism, this is 1930s-50s soviet union style.

never thought people would still build these.

This building is a big nono for me... :ohno: I usually like Calatrava but this time he's failed.

Maybe in some other city but not NY. It doen't fit with in skyline.

Constructionism, this is 1930s-50s soviet union style.

never thought people would still build these.

so Russia had this kind of buildings in 1930-1950, gimme a break :bash:

get a facts

I don't think it works well with the Downtown skyline surrounding it

Edit, never mind.

Can't wait to see what will happen. Have to be crazy or jealous if you don't like it. There's almost no building that doesn't fit in NY's skyline.

pure uglyness a three year old can think of this. This building does nothing to inspire me. I t has no sense of power. Looks piuny as if the New york skyline is going to break that piece of shit in half. LOL sorry but thats the way I feel about it

ummm this building is awesome LOL

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4006/338838ep7.jpg


It's an interesting looking design. Nonetheless, it looks industrial more then it looks residential. I don't care much for the NY skyline as it will change "eventually" and soon once the Freedom tower is up.

Even though the price is understandable given all the wasted space, $30 mill is still too much dough for something that looks industrial...

I wonder why we never seen this thing rendered from the back (facing downtown). I can't imagine it too pretty with that concrete spine.

i saw this design a couple of years ago. i am all for progression, but i am really suprised nyc approved this one....

Constructionism, this is 1930s-50s soviet union style.

never thought people would still build these.

You've no idea what your talking about do you? This is far away from 1930 - 1950 constructionism architecture. This would more fit in hightech industrial architecture.

I think this tower is beautiful, but planned on the wrong location. This tower should be used as a stand alone. In the middle of the central park for example, but not in a row with other buildings

Constructionism, this is 1930s-50s soviet union style.

never thought people would still build these.

MUHHAHAHHAHAH

Please tell me what was it, because obviously it was of a very good quality...

Edit, never mind.

Can't wait to see what will happen. Have to be crazy or jealous if you like it. This building doesn't fit in NY's skyline.

Fixed. :)

There's almost no building that doesn't fit in NY's skyline.

I kinda feel this way too.

I remember hearing about this project awhile ago. IMO I think its dead. but I don't know too much about NYC stuff :nuts::cheers:

i dont see how this doesn't "fit"

is it because it isn't just a glass box? does hearst not "fit" either?

I don't think it's the right thing for New York, a different style. Better for Hong Kong or something like that...

Is that suppossed to be apartments, I thought it was some free-standing structure?

I love it, but I wish it was being built uptown or on the South-West, more fitting locations for a residential building.

It is disgustingly ugly. It looks like a car part, not a place to live.

Calatrava is my fav but this one is... too futuristic for me :-(

whats the difference between a car part and a pencil (esb)? or a cardboard moving box :) that never stopped anyone from occupying it

its ugly accept it ^^

^^Sorry, but people don't have to agree with you. It's by far cooler that just about any other skyscraper I've seen, and I've seen thousands.

its ugly accept it ^^

Ok, just because you don't like it doesn't mean nobody can. start by accepting this, then maybe you can continue to accept that LA skyline suscks and a lot more things...

A bit of China in New York. Not my style. But I don't have to look at it every day. Let New York decide.

Personally I like this design very much, it's one of those love 'em/hate 'em buildings. I wish some wouldn't get so worked up about it though, chill pill.

It IS a great building, u can't deny that... Ugly or not.. it is fantastic and original :okay: i love it

It IS a great building, u can't deny that... Ugly or not.. it is fantastic and original :okay: i love it

:ohno:

Not great.

Well, maybe it would be in the middle of a desert.

It IS a great building, u can't deny that... Ugly or not.. it is fantastic and original :okay: i love it
i like it, too futuristic..

Ban it, it's a piece of Picasso-ish crap. If they build it, the Americans will have finally turned into the British skyscraper idiots who allow for all sorts of messed up buildings go up.

Here's someone whose views are diametrically opposite to mine.

^^LOL right on! :D

Ban it, it's a piece of Picasso-ish crap. If they build it, the Americans will have finally turned into the British skyscraper idiots who allow for all sorts of messed up buildings go up.

an example, crown las vegas:

Ban it, its a piece of Dali-ish crap. if they build it, the americans will have finally turned into the AMERICAN skyscraper idiots who allow for all sorts of messed up buildings to go up.

btw a lot of world achitecture is designed by so called 'British skyscraper idiots' and its all pretty well appreciated. yuo need to do a bit more research before u start preeching about whats good and whats bad architecture :)

sam-whit-kid:

Some buildings in England are beautiful: Swiss Re, Willis Building, Mayor's Office
but, some atrocities such as: 20 Fenchurch Street, 1 New Change
are going to be built because it's possible to do so, disregarding aesthetics and looks.. Modern Picasso- crap such as this New York tower should never be built. Anyway, it's just for the rich($30 mil starting price).

Give it to a plastic city such as Dubai, they'd have a great time with it plus New York doesn't need this rubbish, its as bad as that decomposed fish building that they're building at the WTC.

I mean...it's tall
:dunno:

sam-whit-kid:

its as bad as that decomposed fish building that they're building at the WTC.

What building is this? just wonderin

The other Calatrava building in NYC, the PATH building. Though I never heard it described as a decomposed fish before...

http://www.calatrava.info/buildings/PATH_Terminal.asp

I like this building, but I dont think it works as such a tall structure. The idea of stacking luxurious mansions on each other is a cool idea.

Last I heard this building was dead, however. still a chance?

^^Sorry, but people don't have to agree with you. It's by far cooler that just about any other skyscraper I've seen, and I've seen thousands.

Agreed. It is one of the most interesting designs for a skyscraper I have ever seen and it will certainly add some diversity into New York's otherwise boxy skyline.

really cool. so futuristic.

I believe that if you're going to build something tall enough to really stand out, you've got to make it iconic. Though London may not get many towers (we consider 600 feet some serious height...), this is what we are really good at. Skyscrapers are the architectural symbol of our age, just as spired churches and the like were in centuries past. We should put the same efforts into making them symbols.

(I love that PATH transport hub too.)

Agreed. It is one of the most interesting designs for a skyscraper I have ever seen and it will certainly add some diversity into New York's otherwise boxy skyline.

buddy...New York is already getting 3 new supertalls Downtown to help the skyline's 'diversity'.

deleted

Given the responses, I think this building should be built in London. :)

It's your opinion that it would help out the skyline,that's fine.
but, taking into consideration Woolworth..1WTC..2WTC..American international..Trump..
Lower Manhattan does not have to be desperate to 'diversify' its skyline. It's as simple as that.

I say they should move it to Dubai or Shanghai where there are already a bunch of wierd looking skyscrapers there already.

I believe that if you're going to build something tall enough to really stand out, you've got to make it iconic. Though London may not get many towers (we consider 600 feet some serious height...), this is what we are really good at. Skyscrapers are the architectural symbol of our age, just as spired churches and the like were in centuries past. We should put the same efforts into making them symbols.

(I love that PATH transport hub too.)

I'm sorry, did you say London is good at building iconic skyscrapers,... you have Norman Foster's 30 Axe... and thats it. In terms of building skyscrapers London is a rookie in a league of elite players who have originated and almost mastered this artform.

The only skyscraper on the entire European Continent (which does not have that many scrapers) that I think is a beautiful building, is the Shard London Bridge.

deleted

In terms of building skyscrapers London is a rookie in a league of elite players who have originated and almost mastered this artform.

In terms of numbers yes, but not of designs.

The only skyscraper on the entire European Continent (which does not have that many scrapers) that I think is a beautiful building, is the Shard London Bridge.

The Shard is hard to match, but we have a lot of other designs in the pipeline that are pretty stunning. You won't find any boring boxes in the middle of London, even if 50 more scrapers spring up.

I really like this building! It's original, a little bit wierd I like it though

I dont really care for the design. Just looks like it will be so dated 10 or 15 years down the road. I usually like more classic buildings but it might grow on me they usually do when they start going up.

I really like this building! It's original, a little bit wierd I like it though

I agree, although i seriously doubt that this will get built.

i thought this was approved?? its not???

well it does say App, so i'm assuming it is. also just because it say's App, doesnt mean it will get built

lol, this project has been out there for years! i can't believe all the fuss, i've seen these renderings published years ago (early 00s)

that said, i continue to love the design

well it does say App, so i'm assuming it is. also just because it say's App, doesnt mean it will get built

yes, it is approved but they don't find enough people to live in it :)

I like it....it looks like a water tower but I like it, not sure if this would suit NY but who knows if it gets built might grow on me, not literally........

This is badddd.

Terrible design and this doesn't belong in NY, not even USA.

It looks like a desperate Dubai tower!
:ohno:

i really hope they reconsider this project..its too fake...and already being built in China...cant picture this in lower Manhattan...the surronding buildings are picturesque...this and throw-up on that...and the price...wow...but hey its another 1000footer...so:bash:

WTC was considered weird as well in the 60's-70's, but there was noone to bitch about it on the internet back then :D

I think NYC need some fresh breese in its skyline so i think this one is the best what downtown can happen. Imagine this one the 50 west street beekam place and all the other towers in downtown built it will look totaly new and more interestijng.

99 Church Street too, over 70 floors is possible. The only problem with 80 South Street is that there's no one who wants to pay to live in it - yet. Maybe the Crown Prince of Dubai or Gates would like the highest floor?

do you have a pic or do we have renders in a thread of 99 church street ebola?

Yeah, there are renderings and I think that there was once a thread, but it went missing. Maybe it's in the back of the high-rise section. That tower will be almost on par with the Chrysler Building if they can do it well. Should be anywhere from 700-900' tall, but ya never know.

Have you renders on your pc? when so pls post them.

This is the only picture I have of it; it includes all the new towers of Lower Manhattan (650’ and over) with 80 South Street too:

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4922/bf0f822d1oa3.gif

i like it!

I don't like it! It looks like Shanghai, too frisky!
NY need more straight towers, not a toy tower!

I agree. While a skyscraper can be criticized for being unoriginal, uninspired or just plain boring ... the opposite is also true. Sometimes radical design is posing as originality, but if clashes with it's surroundings it becomes a true monstrosity.

Wow what a massive change in design from... well... anything being designed before. I would be interested in seeing more of this.

Wgat ebola all theese tower will get built till propably 2012.

I think it could add up to the Manhattan skyline, which is completely square-looking, very 80's.
It's funny how people compare it to modernist painters in a way to undermine its value in architecture... It really brings back the idea of something "too futuristic". I bet it would even become a touristic site, due to its uniqueness; I'd like a picture of it!
As for the $30 million starter price... I think there are many people willing to pay that. I just read an article in a local magazine that the global yacht market has boomed over 10% last year... For "boats" that cost over $100 million. I bet most of these people have business in NYC.
And as for Santiago Calatrava: he has his reasons for everything. None of his projects is easy on the eyes, or goes by unnoticed: the new WTC Hub is supposed to look deconstructed, as it resembles parts of the WTC disaster site (I always thought it was obvious); this proposed buildings has a direct connection to the concept of "living in a box", common in any big city.
Summing up: I like it!

isnt he also the architect of the chicago spire?

look what he has also designed.

http://guia.ojodigital.com/albums/userpics/palau.jpg

isnt he also the architect of the chicago spire?

look what he has also designed.

http://guia.ojodigital.com/albums/userpics/palau.jpg


what a freak is that? :nuts:

3D-Cinema in Valenica :)

^^ really nice architecture very pure design

3D-Cinema in Valenica :)

:bash:

It's an opera house called Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía... and it's in Valencia.

isnt it a bit offtopic?
btw whats the status of the tower?

Terrible architecture! it's not manhattan style!

:bash:

It's an opera house called Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía... and it's in Valencia.

:bash:, sorry you're right....the two buildings look very similar

Leave Calatrava alone people!!! The man's a genius as far as Spire isn't quite completely fully 101percent concerned!

This tower is a beauty of rythm, dynamism and presence. It is not bulky, yet powerful. It is slender enough to make your eyes reach for the clouds, yet does not look like a silly fragile stick or antenna. The cubes are piled in a very dynamic way, forsing the sight to go from one to another, to another. On top on all the purity of its color and its height will insure a new landmark for the city, recognizable from any angle or spot of NY (not mentionning the very probable and expectable gorgeous night lighting for those who are familiar with Calatrava's previous achievements).

I'm sick of witnessing constant bashing of this wonder on the sole basis of arguments such as: "Not NY style."
Hell!!! Chysler wasn't NY's style either at some point I'm sure!

:bash::speech::rant::bleep::tongue::mad2:

i dont really like this building

Leave Calatrava alone people!!! The man's a genius as far as Spire isn't quite completely fully 101percent concerned!

This tower is a beauty of rythm, dynamism and presence. It is not bulky, yet powerful. It is slender enough to make your eyes reach for the clouds, yet does not look like a silly fragile stick or antenna. The cubes are piled in a very dynamic way, forsing the sight to go from one to another, to another. On top on all the purity of its color and its height will insure a new landmark for the city, recognizable from any angle or spot of NY (not mentionning the very probable and expectable gorgeous night lighting for those who are familiar with Calatrava's previous achievements).

I'm sick of witnessing constant bashing of this wonder on the sole basis of arguments such as: "Not NY style."
Hell!!! Chysler wasn't NY's style either at some point I'm sure!

:bash::speech::rant::bleep::tongue::mad2:

I love the Chicago Spire, but this thing is junk and would be a spectacular eyesore. Just my opinion. I don't live in NYC and I'm not building it, so it ain't my call anyway.

It lokks fragile, but it is beautiful!

I think it was a bad idea to make this thread. Certainly this project is approved, but it's not coming for years if it does at all. I think this thread gives a false sense of hope to fans of the project.

^ About three months ago, a developer said that it was still alive. If nothing happens for another year, then think all hope is lost. For now, there's at least a little hope.

The good news is that even if nothing happens, a skyscraper will be built at 80 South Street because, according to what I've been hearing, the plot is zoned for very tall buildings.

^^ According to what you've been hearing...
Perhaps you cannot say, but if you can: what job or activity do you do? Or at least, how did you "hear about it"?

Cheers

And that's how you ruin the world's most beautiful skyline... :ohno:

It certainly stands out.

^^ According to what you've been hearing...
Perhaps you cannot say, but if you can: what job or activity do you do? Or at least, how did you "hear about it"?

Cheers

Perhaps because I read a lot about NY development?
I remember reading an article in the news that said the plot was going to be zoned for taller buildings. I could be a federal agent for all you care. Not like I said that I was 100% right, but there's no chance that they would build another small building in this area after razing one.

The current 80 South Street:
http://www.emporis.com/images/6/2006/08/484001.jpg

Is it even gone yet? This is the golden question.

Certainly some mega-wealthy prospective buyers have come across this thing on the market. It absolutely amazes me how there hasn't been one bite. There's got to be a psychology behind this one -- as in, why don't they like it? Is it just *too* out there and visible? Some like to believe the super rich like to flaunt. But really, they value privacy, seclusion, and security more. Where do the big moguls live again? Name one address.

According to Emporis, believe it or not, the whole tower only has 12 residences. I'm not talking about each box, I mean this entire amazing tower only has 12 residences. It's possible that people have bitten. It's possible that another developer is about to attack and oust Calatrava. It's possible that nothing will happen for another two years.

Yes, the initial plan was only one residence for each cube, priced from $29 million to $59 million, but now it seems likely that at least some of the cubes will have four residences.

1 res. per cube can't work ^^

I think that people with a $29+ million budget for an apartment would only want the best, biggest and highest apartment in a building, maybe the penthouse with a roof garden. The highest cube might sell very well, but the other cubes might be a problem. Those people do not want the "second best".

Im assuming there is a core and lift shaft traveling up the side that we dont see?

quite a unique design.. looks quite fragile, although we know it very much isnt going to be...

That tower is no good. not for Manhattan. especially downtown

Stacked boxes.

That's practically it...

I just don't get the argument that this "doesn't fit" with New York's skyline. Firstly because, as others have said, for all the bulk there's plenty in the way of diversity in there as things stand, but mainly because the form is so sculptural, like a highly functional public art work.

In fact, compare the design with the sketch below (left) for Calatrava's "Running Torso" (1985).

http://www.*************/books/Calatrava/images/Calatrava-photo-6.jpg

In any case, it most likely won't be built. Calm yourselves and sooth your battered coronaries.

Stacked boxes.

That's practically it...

And has it ever been done before like this? Is it a commonplace design?

No. And it is a fact, not an opinion. The structure around the boxes stacked in a unique way for skyscrapers makes it look even more elegant and is the real reason why I like it.

Even if you stretched one of the boxes 900 feet tall, I think it would still look great.

Stacked boxes.

That's practically it...

And what is a regular skyscraper, and straight up box (sometimes with an ornament top). That is why I like this one alot, think outside the 'regular' box design.

With that attitude (of some forumers) towards new shapes and architecture in the past, we'd be measuring the heights of our caves today :crazy:

Die, thread, die.

Newah ! :D

Looks like it would be unstable and shake a lot.

There hasn't been anything in the press about this since 2005.

Die, thread, die.

What's that? "The thread, the"?

news:

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_256/mixeduse.html
Volume 20, Number 46 | THE NEWSPAPER OF LOWER MANHATTAN | MARCH 28 - APRIL 3, 2008

Mixed Use

By Patrick Hedlund

Calatrava’s cubes on deck?

Sciame Development’s recent announcement that the Downtown builder would be moving its offices on the Seaport to new digs on Wall St. have re-ignited rumors that the developer might pursue its ambitious plan for a Santiago Calatrava-designed tower at 80 South St.

Both Sciame Development and F.J. Sciame Construction Co. will take over the entire 37,000-sqaure-foot second floor at 14 Wall St. beginning Friday, leaving open the possibility for the planned 835-foot, staggered cube building to rise on the East River waterfront.

“We are exploring a number of development opportunities, including the Calatrava tower,” said John Randolph, vice president of real estate for Sciame Development, noting the site includes an additional 110,000 square feet of development rights since the original design, allowing for a larger commercial base.

The project includes a series of 12 four-story cantilevered cubes, with the top 10 cubes containing townhouses costing between $29 million and $55 million a unit. Under the iniital idea, the base unit would have included a cultural component, possibly for museum space.

In a 2006 interview, Frank Sciame told Downtown Express he could develop the site then with a traditional building, but wanted to wait until the Calatrava project became possible. At the time, he had ruled out the museum and was hoping to get a small, high-end hotel in the ground floor.

`“We may need Lower Manhattan to catch up to the vision of the tower,” he said then. “If it doesn’t put as much money in my pocket, that’s OK— I’m not going to do it if I lose money… Time is on my side. I control the site.”

Mayor Mike Bloomberg told Downtown Express in 2005 that if he were looking to move from the Upper East Side, he would be tempted to buy a box condo in the Calatrava tower.

The developer tapped Newmark Knight Frank to manage the sales process for the site to explore “multiple scenarios,” but if Sciame is still as hot on the cubes as he was before the move, keep your eyes on the waterfront.

Just to think, a few days ago, I said to myself, "It's dead, might as well tell a mod to lock the thread." Now we get news that it's still alive, for the first time since 2006.

Woah, developer who isn't after money; this building could really get built. I'll wait with Frank for a few more years or until whenever construction starts, with any luck this year.

The only skyscraper on the entire European Continent (which does not have that many scrapers) that I think is a beautiful building, is the Shard London Bridge.

.. and it doesn't even exist yet ...

Just to think, a few days ago, I said to myself, "It's dead, might as well tell a mod to lock the thread." Now we get news that it's still alive, for the first time since 2006.

Woah, developer who isn't after money; this building could really get built. I'll wait with Frank for a few more years or until whenever construction starts, with any luck this year.

i never thought this project is dead :)

Reckless Claim: 80 South Street 'Still Alive'

Wednesday, February 28, 2007, by Lockhart

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the recent debate about Pier 17, one might almost forget the nearby Tower O' Penthouses that developer Frank Sciame and architect Santiago Calatrava have planned for 80 South Street. When last we checked in, Calatrava was "full of hope." (Poor guy.) Today, we get this:
http://www.curbed.com/archives/2005_02_80frontstreet.jpg

With the recent debate about Pier 17, one might almost forget the nearby Tower O' Penthouses that developer Frank Sciame and architect Santiago Calatrava have planned for 80 South Street. When last we checked in, Calatrava was "full of hope." (Poor guy.) Today, we get this:

In response to a query from CityRealty.com after a Community Board 1 public meeting [Monday] night at Southbridge Towers on plans by General Growth Corporation to redevelop the South Street Seaport, Gregg Pasquarelli, a partner with SHoP Architects, who works for General Growth and is also the architect for the city's planned East River Waterfront plan, said that the 80 South Street skyscraper project was "still alive."

When asked for more information, he repeated that it was "still alive," but offered no details.

Buyers with at least $29 million in fully liquid capital should immediately begin watching their mailboxes for the new 80 South Street marketing materials carrying the catchy new slogan.

80 South Street: Still Alive!

links:
· 80 South Street project reported to be "still alive" [CityRealty]
· Calatrava 'Full of [Deluded] Hope' at 80 South Street [Curbed]
· Calatrava's Tower o' Penthouses: Crank up the Hype [Curbed]

source: http://curbed.com/archives/2007/02/28/reckless_claim_80_south_street_still_alive.php

Huge news

http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr?noteid=17362

Come on people, let's get this tower built already !!

We've got a very good addition to the Downtown skyline, let's build this. :okay:

Eh... that story is like a year old. I don't know.

Still hibernating?

Eh... that story is like a year old. I don't know.

The DT Express article isn't more than a week old. It's still safe to assume there's a chance it wil go up. The developer has approval and he said he'll wait for years until the time is right to do it.

^^

Moloko:

Give up yourself unto the moment
The time is now
Give up yourself unto the moment
Lets make this moment ... last

And we gave it time
All eyes are on the clock
But time takes too much time
Please make the waiting stop

The DT Express article isn't more than a week old. It's still safe to assume there's a chance it wil go up. The developer has approval and he said he'll wait for years until the time is right to do it.

Oh ok, I didn't see the DT article.

They could probaly get more interest for foreign buyers with the dollar so weak.

Hmmm, now he needs to make this cubes much higher, because right next door (south of the Calatrava tower site), this tower is been planned. The site has already been cleared for construction...


By lofter1 (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=184035&postcount=46)
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Financial%20District/161%20Maiden%20Lane/161Maiden_Render_01d4_800.jpg

^ Huh ? Which one is this ?

I've never seen that one before. There's also another nice looking office skyscraper close to 80SS right by the water; I think it could be going up soon. Towers by the water always make the skyline look grander and we need more of them like the GS Global HQ and this, perhaps to extend the skyline to midtown as much as possible, while projects on the east and west sides reach downtown; In my lifetime, I think we'll see them connect at a point. Plow right through the NIMBY epicenter, boys.

I haven't been to the city since the summer so alot has changed. I can say I've had my finger cross for this building for about 2 or 3 years. And there's nothing saying it not going to be built. If Bloomberg can get all his rich buddies to buy into it, we would be in business. The price tag is high but it's worth it. This is the second best looking building going up in the city behind the MOMA. I wouldn't have said that 2 years ago when it was # one.

GOD BLESS NEW YORK CITY

yea, this is a beauty

sure looks unique

This is a NEW design for 80 South Street, but it's from a different firm.
The developer who owns the plot still wants to build the first 80 South Street. Doesn't seem like the new one is going anyone:

http://i30.tinypic.com/9pnlef.jpg

^^^ Why build this boring azz building when u can build the one we all want. This other firm needs to go to hell. If they wanted to build the building here, then they should have won the bid. They just need to bring the price down and make more condo's, 20 30 million is way to high something thats not a house. I don't think Trump could afford to live in it. I'm sure he wouldn't see he has his owe projects in the city.

Let's hope they go with the old project.

This is a NEW design for 80 South Street, but it's from a different firm.
The developer who owns the plot still wants to build the first 80 South Street. Doesn't seem like the new one is going anyone:

http://i30.tinypic.com/9pnlef.jpg

Wow. i would much rather the original design. This one, from the render, looks so bland and boring. the other one is so eyecatching and unique

Eh... I'll wait to see other renderings of that one before passing final judgment, but yeah that's pretty bland.

indeed, the old design was much better....but the new is still better than no tower :)

^^^ no it really isn't if they build that piece of crap in my city I'll go off. This isn't just any normal city. In new york skyscrapers are works of art. This new building isn't art it's trash. If u like just any building or tower there, then I'm sure you have no problem with them keeping the old brick building that there right now.

for sure the first design is something special, and definitely new for NYC....but also this tower would fit in the skyline i think

indeed, the old design was much better....but the new is still better than no tower :)

The new building that was proposed by people that dont even own the site.

I'm glad that more and more people have warmed to the 80SS design. W/ this new firm's design, I think people realize how great it would be to have something really distinctive on that land and also it's good to see 80SS still fighting its way towards getting approved, I like that about this project, if it does, it'll be one of the things that I think about when I see it. It could also set a new precedent so we see more new distinctive architecture DT along w/ the WTC development.

I wonder... why exactly did this other firm release only a night rendering?

probably because it looks worse during the day.

HAHA the 'new rendering' will look like a FRIGGIN CHIMNEY in the day, that is the reason for the night rendering. The original design is just way so much better!!!!!

What the H were they thinking? This is the worst design i ever seen, i dont like it, the last one was better, anyway, at least is better than nothing.

I wonder if they sat in a room and thought "How can we make this building boring as sin?"

Off course we all want the original design, but this new one may be a bit more feasible from a financial point of view.

:bash::bash::bash::bash: what are you talking about this so called new design is by know means replace the old one. Unless you know something I don't know, I haven't heard anything about a design change. This design was made by a outside sources. If no one has any news about that ugly building, I suggest we get back to talking about the real one. In other words back to topic.

Technically we are on topic because this is a proposal for the same spot (whether or not it's going to be a serious bid we won't know for sure).

Hmmmm no I don't think it is. I think it just wishfull thinking on the part of this other firm. If I make pictures and post them for the sit you'd probley think thats alright too. You can't design a building for a plot of land, One that you don't own, and two that you didn't win. I haven't seen any real news about this other building anywhere, other then here and to tell you the truth that doesn't hold much weight with me.

VIEW FULL ARTICLE : http://www.nypost.com/seven/04162008/business/sky_cubes_meltdown_106788.htm

'SKY CUBES' MELTDOWN
CALATRAVA DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEAD

April 16, 2008 -- ANOTHER proposed Santiago Calatrava tower is not just getting its wings clipped; it's biting the dust.

This project was eagerly awaited for a small site at 80 South St. by the East River and featured townhomes in the sky.

The design called for an 835-foot tall tower with a dozen "Sky Cube" townhouses alternating around a central core so that one's roof would become the outdoor garden for the cube above and to the side. An antenna was to bring the entire structure to 1,000 feet. Its base was being pitched to cultural, retail and office users.

The architecturally significant tower was introduced to much critical acclaim and a price tag of around $35 million per multi-story residence.

"The price reflects both design and quality," developer Frank Sciame told us at the time, "and it will be the most expensive residential tower in the city."

Back at the end of 2005, and throughout 2006 and 2007, the potential prices inspired much awe - and apparently not a lot of takers.

Oddly, while the site is now on the market and expected to fetch around $115 million, equating to $400 per buildable foot, in the last year, the luxury market has racked up many sales higher than that benchmark, albeit in more traditional locations, such as around Central Park.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04162008/photos/biz038.jpg

The Power Trio of Jimmy "King" Kung, David Noonan and Jennifer Schwartzman have just been hired by the investor group that includes Sciame and Cord Meyer Development to market the 8,128-foot parcel at South and Fletcher streets that holds up to 288,670 feet of development with no height restriction. While all of it can be developed as commercial or hotel space, as much as 144,318 feet can be residential.

"It's an exciting vision that got worldwide attention," said Noonan. "The buyer can build their own vision."

It appears at least one other developer has already scoped this out. Cook + Fox architects created and posted renderings of a "competition submission" on their Web site that was described as a "constructible solution for a small urban site."

The designs include an "80" on the tower's entrance and it's located in the right spot on the waterfront. A city sleuth discovered the drawings and reposted them on Wired New York.

A spokeswoman for Cook + Fox, Alice Hartley told us the renderings were created for a private developer who requested proposals from five firms about six months ago and has declined to be identified. Apparently, however, it is neither Sciame nor Cord Meyer.

so the original plan is now dead :(

Not exctly, and like I said, even if it is, 80 South Street is not dead and a tall skyscraper will be built there.

The current proposed buildings looks a little taller and will have a bigger impact on the skyline. Just have to wait to see what will really happen.

hope the new design will also very good....though i'll ever miss the original :)

damn, i was going to grab up 2 of those sky boxes.

Pics the article mentions, posted in Wired New York (also in Cook + Fox page under project named "Waterfront Tower"):

http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_04_80SouthNew2.JPG

http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_04_80SouthNew3.JPG

http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_04_80SouthNew4.JPG

http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_04_80SouthNew5.JPG

http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_04_80SouthNew6.JPG

I'm not a fan of this new trash ass building they should of drop the price of them damn boxes. We'll see what happens

I'm not a fan of this new trash ass building they should of drop the price of them damn boxes. We'll see what happens

They should of just split the boxes up, into like 4 units per box.

^^ Yep! I'm gutted... :ohno:

I wont write on this thread anymore, cus I could careless about this new design. If they bring the old design then I'll be back. Into then this project can go to hell.

i also miss the old design, but there will be build an quite tall tower...and that makes me happy again :)

:O :O :O :O :O :dance: Ahhhhhh, another rectangle!!!

Wow, it's wonderful!

Oh come on guys, the old design was horrible, at least for this spot! It would ruin this side of Manhattan! Looked more like a sculpture than a building if you ask me. =)

i'm glad they cancelled the old design.
i'm not from new york or even american, but i don't like to see great cities being destroyed, either they are from my country or not.

^^^^ The two of you above!!

You go to the corner face to the wall for ten minutes, right this second!!! :bash:

^^ :lol:

Thoes desings are far from final. But at least 80 South Street is far from dead and now progress is being made even if it killed the first design.

They should let me design it. I might want to get my degree first lol.

80 South Street is NOT canceled. It's only the older design that may be, but...
(Don't forget that the plot has been approved for a supertall.)


APRIL, 23, 2008:

"Frank Sciame of Sciame Construction finally called back after last week's column appeared to note that another developer could decide to use the Santiago Calatrava design for 80 South Street."

dum dum dum

So the Calatrava design still has a glimpse of hope, and there WILL be a skyscraper erecred at 80 South Street.

a supertall would be perfect on that plot i think

we'll see but at this point I no longer care. They need to quit talking about it and be about it.

80 South Street is NOT canceled. It's only the older design that may be, but...
(Don't forget that the plot has been approved for a supertall.)


APRIL, 23, 2008:

"Frank Sciame of Sciame Construction finally called back after last week's column appeared to note that another developer could decide to use the Santiago Calatrava design for 80 South Street."

dum dum dum

So the Calatrava design still has a glimpse of hope, and there WILL be a skyscraper erecred at 80 South Street.


Although 80 South Street has been approved by the city, the project was later cancelled in April 2008. The building did not sell any one of its 10 multi-million dollar residential cubes, and the developer of the project also listed the declining U.S. real estate market as a factor in its cancellation /1/.

/1/ Weiss, Lois (2008-04-16). 'Sky Cubes' Meltdown: Calatrava Downtown Residential Project Dead. New York Post. Retrieved on 2008-04-18.

The project is dead:http://www.nypost.com/seven/04162008/business/sky_cubes_meltdown_106788.htm

the old version of 80 south street is dead but not the plot, there will be a tower

All that is dead is perhaps the old version. We'll be going back to a prop state.

What gets built at 80 SS, depending on the new developer of the plot, alas for you, is not dead. The new guy could build the skyscraper in this thread or anything he desires. 80 South Street will be getting something and nothing died, except Frank's hold on the site, which doesn't mean his vision died. Another firm that wants it has sent in their vision for 80 South Street. It seems to be a little bit taller to the top so with any luck, assuming they get the site, they can also improve the design.

I'm sick of this talk nothing happen in 4 years and nothing going to happen soon. I never got my hopes up with this building, I was just wait for them to call it dead. They did that now I can move on with my life. If they build this building or something else that would be great for them. What else do I say

Maybe if the design didn't border the realm of insanity it would get built. Redesign the tower, its the easiest way. Most importantly, get rid of Calatrava, his work doesn't belong in the city.

yes only boring architecture is allowed ^^

^^yes and no creativity is allowed as this will just confound the ignorant masses who think all tall buildings should be safely solid, thick and square-like their mothers

don't forget about their fathers. You know the really lazy looking fat buildings.

... or maybe they should just offer more 'affordable' apartements for the common manhattan millionaire instead of cubes for the super rich ...

So when is an expected date of when construction will begin

^^When they choose the final design, they will probably start construction ;)

never these people suck at their jobs. If they work with the same design then they need to make more condos. Let just hope the new one is better then the old.

yes only boring architecture is allowed ^^

Calatrava is dirt, his designs are stupid.

so you find the CS also stupid?

@ storms991

And also you call Turning Torso, an architecture masterpiece, rubbish?
IMO Calatrava's design for 80 South Street was very futuristic and modern which means not stupid.

Calatrava is dirt, his designs are stupid.does he make you feel inadequate perhaps?go on,show us your clever designs then.Anyway how can we take someone seriously who's forum name sounds like something from the bold and the beautiful

Maybe if the design didn't border the realm of insanity it would get built. Redesign the tower, its the easiest way. Most importantly, get rid of Calatrava, his work doesn't belong in the city.

LOL......... K

Thank You, sad but true. :)

storm, calatrava will not build any tower on this plot....that's for sure ;)

Has anyone found information on the (old) projected build cost for this project?

Wow, that first design was crazy...

This new tower is one of the top I've EVER seen. This tower was recently proposed three blocks from 80 South Street:

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport2.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport8.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport3.jpg
http://www.thenewseaport.com/images/FE/chain233siteType8/site202/design/skyline.jpg

Must be at least 500'. I guess a new thread will be made soon.

The last rendering shows 1 or 2 new (meaning unheard/unseen) supertalls in the lower Manhattan skyline, and it seems WTC Tower 3 is taller than WTC Tower 2, but the WTC seems out of scale (too small, somehow).

yea i saw that on ssp and was like "This is one of my least favorite towers i've seen this year" :(

This new tower is one of the top I've EVER seen. This tower was recently proposed three blocks from 80 South Street:

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport2.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport8.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport3.jpg
http://www.thenewseaport.com/images/FE/chain233siteType8/site202/design/skyline.jpg

Must be at least 500'. I guess a new thread will be made soon.

The last rendering shows 1 or 2 new (meaning unheard/unseen) supertalls in the lower Manhattan skyline, and it seems WTC Tower 3 is taller than WTC Tower 2, but the WTC seems out of scale (too small, somehow).


WOW ! This tower looks incredible at night!

Although Calavatra's design is better, this one fits NY's skyline.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/Seaport3.jpg

omg I love this :banana:

If it means land reclamation - I am against it.

Not bad... but significant shorter than the previous proposal :).

It's a nice exterior, but just a decorated box really, but I do like it a lot

Is that new building a replacement for 80 South Street, or a separate proposal for a different location?

This is not 80 SS; it is supposed to replace the mall on the pier.

Yeah that new building would be replacing this

http://www.worldshipny.com/seaport4.jpg

It's an amazing proposal. But I think that if you want to discuss it, you should open another thread, as this one is dedicated to 80 South Street. Thanks.

Pier 17: Nuh nuh NAH NAHH Nuh nuh NAH NAHH HEY HEY HEYYYY Gooooood bye!

that´s really ugly
I didn´t like

that building's GROSS, this city sucks

i like it better every time i look at it. almost anything is better than what's there current.

It looks amazing

It looks horrible IMO.They shouldn't allow tall buildings to be built there.Something like the extension to Guggenheim Museum proposed a few years ago would fit better.

that building's GROSS, this city sucks

OH NO YOU DI-ENT'

that building's GROSS, this city sucks


Teenage angst. How adorable!

That's pretty awful. That pattern doesn't fit at all. Beehive crossed with a cereal box.

that building's GROSS, this city sucks

so then move in desert if you don't like it. :ohno:

why do you guys still talk about the old proposal....you all know it is cancelled and will be never build ^^

why do you guys still talk about the old proposal....you all know it is cancelled and will be never build ^^

they're referring to the new south street seaport proposal (not 80SS)

The new 12-unit residential building would replace a historic 6-story red brick building. I don't know what kind of impact a tower with that kind of design on the Lower Manhattan skyline.