UPDATED NEWS: Since TS likely has ruined their bid, Durst seems like the likely winner, but anything is possible now.
Durst:


http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1691_3_1000%20Durst%203.jpg
The tallest tower in this plan is in the area of 366m/1,200 feet.

850'x3
700'x3
550'-650'x3
150'-350'x3
900'x1
1,200'x1



-----------------Older news:

It is official. Tishman Speyer, owner of such New York landmarks as Rockefeller Center and the Chrysler Building, will transform the West Side Yards into a vibrant neighborhood and commercial center on Manhattan’s Far West Side.

Designed/planned by Helmut Jahn

Their page: http://www.tishmanspeyer.com/HudsonYards/index.html

Tishman Speyer has just won the right to build their masterplan for Hudson Yards, which will be part of the nation's fourth largest CBD when completed. The MTA approved their plans.

They are planning two 900 foot tall towers and two 1,100 foot tall towers, plus about eight smaller towers, an arts center, and much more. It includes about ten million square feet of office space, half a million square feet of retail space, about three million square feet of residential space, 0.2 million square feet of cultural space, a school for the city, lots of open green space, and more. It possible for these numbers to go down or up. It will all be green, meeting minimum certification of LEED Gold by the U.S. Green Building Council, representing one of the most significant commitments to green development in the nation.

At this stage, it's all planning, not skyscraper designs, so all of the proposals had dull buildings.


http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5152/capturecd5.jpg

This is all at a concept stage and these following towers are not what will end up being built:


http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/698/capturedeu3.jpg
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8693/20881tishm233qs3.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/217/captureov5.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9573/capturewei1.jpg

There are at least four other, likely more, supertalls which will be bordering this project.

New York Citaaayyy !!!!!:banana:

great! I love the towers (even though they can definitely be improved, and probably will be), and the street level experience was the most exiting of all the proposals.
Let's start building and add another 2 supertalls to New York :cheers:

It will most likely be at least two years before construction starts because they have to build a massive platform as a part of the skyscrapers' foundation, which will cost over a billion dollars to do, assuming everything goes well.

There's no doubt that more details will be added and the plans will be improved as time passes, just like what happened to the New WTC.

but the platform is the fun part: i'd love to see how the do it, it will be one of the most challenging construction ever made, building a platform capable of holding 2 supertalls, 2 900 footers and a lot of other buildings, everything without stopping the trains to run.
I want to see something like that happening:cheers::cheers:
Then of course, later on we will have the skyscrapers, and the fun will just continue. Great project!

This is crap compared to the other, more curvy twin design with the great base, I believe it was by SOM?

I hope it improves because right now it isn't great.

What could have been...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89339269/original.jpg

WRONG CHOICE. The chosen one looks like something proposed in the 70's. I can't believe they went for the worst one.

It's quite far from "crap" no matter what it's compared to. The key word is dull, at least for now. It could easily rival the WTC in terms of size, and even design later on when we get newer renderings. The current renderings show placeholders, but to what degress, I don't know.

The plan you are talking about, by SOM, was the first to die, so just forget about it so your hopes won't be crushed again. It's pointless to post pictures of things that are dead. And I mean dead. Even this SOM plan was dull in the sense that they also had many copies of towers, just in different sizes, like all of the plans. What had some detail was everything save the towers. But no one was 100% sure they would win, so why spend millions making extensive and detailed plans which only have a 20% chance of being built? Also, the time and resources they had to put these plans together was small, so it will improve now that a winner is decided.

The bright side is that this plan, Tishman's masterplan, will be worked on and it's the plan with the most office space by far, and...

twin towers, two pairs. Hopefully they keep that idea. It's perhaps like the first renderings of the WTC, and how they went from small and bad to big and good. Hope for the best.

Awesome design :)

What could have been...

WRONG CHOICE. The chosen one looks like something proposed in the 70's. I can't believe they went for the worst one.

Not enough money i think! The cheapest development meaby? N.Y is not Dubai, Amerika is not the skycraper trendsetter any more like they are in the 20th century.

But above all, a new big project again!

This project is basically another New WTC. There's going to be at least four or five other supertalls close to it.

If it was not possible, it would not be proposed; NY doesn't just pull megaprojects out of its ass without planning like hell first, something many other cities do. This project will cost at least $10 billion, likely much more, and is one of the most expensive right now; it has federal, city, and state support to a degree. America is still the king of skyscrapers; many of the skyscrapers in other countries would not be possible without American engineering and design firms. But according to the next poster, I'm totally wrong and the US isn't needed at all and what I say is BS; it has old skyscrapers and is to weak to build new, groundbreaking stuff and will never be the best at anything or have the greatest anything because it's clearly not possible and never will be possible. O, woe is it.

It's quite far from "crap" no matter what it's compared to. The key word is dull, at least for now. It could easily rival the WTC in terms of size, and even design later on when we get newer renderings. The current renderings show placeholders, but to what degress, I don't know.

I disagree. If it turns out like that, then I would say it is crap compared to what NYC is supposedly capable of. I mean c'mon, don't kid yourself, that doesn't look good or world class by any stretch of the imagination, atleast not too me, unless I am missing something. I hope you are right about them just being placeholders. They should have different architects designing different parts of the scheme.

The skyscrapers' design wasn't the only part of this competition.

Not every proposed building can be like the MoMA tower Foster/Roger's WTC Tower. We'd also be calling the first WTC crap, and the concept for 7WTC too would be considered garbage.

Show me the early batch of renderings for a project of this scale that look exactly like the completed product and I'll chop my head off while standing on the apex of the Empire State Building in a monkey suit covered in peanut butter and bird seeds.

It will most likely be at least two years before construction starts because they have to build a massive platform as a part of the skyscrapers' foundation, which will cost over a billion dollars to do, assuming everything goes well.

There's no doubt that more details will be added and the plans will be improved as time passes, just like what happened to the New WTC.



Like the one that was made for the former WTC?

They better do some massive changes to this design. I'd also like to see them build those two 1,100 foot towers higher (or at least one of them). I was hoping we'd get a building taller than the ESB out of this project, but I'd be content with the current heights staying but with a new design.

I have to say, though, I am disappointed with their choice. I'd say this proposal was the second worst, with Extell being the worst. I was hoping Vornado would get it after Brookfield dropped out.

Like the one that was made for the former WTC?

You mean the slurry walls? Those were to prevent the WTC site from caving in.

The plan doesn't need major changes to be world-class. The greatest buildings are usually simple. They could easily change how everything looks with minor changes, like adding a slant from the roof that reaches to grade and messing with the height or adding a diagrid shell, something to subtract from the blankness of the facade. If it were up to me and the general shape and height and positions of the towers had to remain the same, I'd cover the towers with steel cross-bracing and light it when it gets dark.

We have not even see the lobbies/basees of this project. It's going to be a waiting game. Facade detail, shape, which tower contains what, lighting, ect., all of these things are up in the air. They are or will be working on it, and they have years to do it.

Not enough money i think! The cheapest development meaby? N.Y is not Dubai, Amerika is not the skycraper trendsetter any more like they are in the 20th century.

But above all, a new big project again!

:lol:

this seriously made me laugh for a good 30 minutes.
Dude, look it up wherever you want (Encyclopedia Britannica is a good one), and you will be startled: no matter how many arab princes with money there are in dubai, the money available is not nearly as much as the one flowing in New York .Just for example, the budget available to the city for public works (development, maintenance,.....) is of 90 billion dollars a year(the highest in the world). At this, we can start to add the private funding.... :cheers:

I don't know in which dreamland you live, but it surely is a funny one.

Show me the early batch of renderings for a project of this scale that look exactly like the completed product and I'll chop my head off while standing on the apex of the Empire State Building in a monkey suit covered in peanut butter and bird seeds.

I can't. You are right that projects get better throughout the design process. But if these projects will improve on what we see here, imagine how much the SOM one could have? Straight off the bat that looked like a far superior proposal, and to me that does not bode well for this one.

:cheers:, already saw it on SSP that the Tishman proposal has been chosen. but still......Brookfield was much better

I do like the Brookfield proposal more, but I just want to see this get built. This part of NYC will be fun to watch the next few years. God the skyline will be unbelievable in 5 years!

You mean the slurry walls? Those were to prevent the WTC site from caving in.

The plan doesn't need major changes to be world-class. The greatest buildings are usually simple. They could easily change how everything looks with minor changes, like adding a slant from the roof that reaches to grade and messing with the height or adding a diagrid shell, something to subtract from the blankness of the facade. If it were up to me and the general shape and height and positions of the towers had to remain the same, I'd cover the towers with steel cross-bracing and light it when it gets dark.

We have not even see the lobbies/basees of this project. It's going to be a waiting game. Facade detail, shape, which tower contains what, lighting, ect., all of these things are up in the air. They are or will be working on it, and they have years to do it.





I meant the superblock.

:lol:

this seriously made me laugh for a good 30 minutes.
Dude, look it up wherever you want (Encyclopedia Britannica is a good one), and you will be startled: no matter how many arab princes with money there are in dubai, the money available is not nearly as much as the one flowing in New York .Just for example, the budget available to the city for public works (development, maintenance,.....) is of 90 billion dollars a year(the highest in the world). At this, we can start to add the private funding.... :cheers:

I don't know in which dreamland you live, but it surely is a funny one.

The Burj Dubai have a cost of Cost: US$800,000,000.00 for one tower. There are many other projects going on such like "dubailand" in Dubai. The development is expected to be a full featured city divided into seven theme worlds. The short range goal of the Dubailand is to attract 15 million tourists to Dubai by 2010. Developers expect to accomplish this goal by creating a tourism, entertainment, and leisure destination that will attract visitors not only from surrounding countries but also from Europe and Asia. The venture is expected to attract approximately 200,000 visitors daily and cost $20 billion. End dont forget the palmislands end the world in sea (US$ +/-60billion) and so on...

Cost war, huh? Well the FT alone is costing over 2 billion, and the entire redevelopment of the area will be 22 billion. This project, I don't know, but I'd say at least 10 billion. Everything in these citys all together must be around 100s of billions and NIMBYs would call it all a waste.



I liked the Brookfield one too, but it seems that I'm the only one who wanted this plan to win. If we were all betting the ones we liked the most, I'd be a millionaire. The one main reason why I wanted it to win was because of the vast amount of office space. Great amounts of used office space makes a city a real city. Office space in mass is always a great thing to have. Basically, like I've been saying, this is another WTC for NYC in so many ways. Something else it has in common w/ the WTC is that the area aound it is also booming like crazy... we'll see a dozen towers over 800 feet before you know it. Keep in mind the whole MSG thing and all the pros that is getting, the Sherwood and Sunflower towers, the Extell Tower, the Brookfield Towers that are still alive, and everything else. This section of Manhattan is going up. You also have Hudson Yards North and other areas too.

The Burj Dubai have a cost of Cost: US$800,000,000.00 for one tower. There are many other projects going on such like "dubailand" in Dubai. The development is expected to be a full featured city divided into seven theme worlds. The short range goal of the Dubailand is to attract 15 million tourists to Dubai by 2010. Developers expect to accomplish this goal by creating a tourism, entertainment, and leisure destination that will attract visitors not only from surrounding countries but also from Europe and Asia. The venture is expected to attract approximately 200,000 visitors daily and cost $20 billion. End dont forget the palmislands end the world in sea (US$ +/-60billion) and so on...



He we go again.

The Burj Dubai ramblings have filtered their way into THIS thread as well!

Seems like all people care about here is the architecture.

#1 the designs of the towers WILL change.

#2 the Brookfield design was one of the most stale from the street-level IMO and the Tishman one was probably the most inviting and intimate, it will lead to a vibrant district whereas some of the other designs may have led to a cold, imposing public space.

^^^I think the problem is the balance of NIMBYs; send all of ours to Dubai and you've killed two birds with one stone. If they were to be silenced, they would self-destruct, taking out the entire area. They must be kept in a corner in some places, and if they step out, they are shipped to Manhattan.

About Tishman winning:
"The community board and the borough president will each give nonbinding recommendations about the proposed zoning change, and often their voices influence the decision of the Council."

I can sum it all up for the CB:
1- Decrease the height of all buildings to under 700 feet; under 500 feet is better
2- At max we suggest 0.8MSF of office space and 0.1MSF of retail space; the rest, 4MSF max, should be used for low-income housing, designed by Gene Kaufman
This will protect the harmony of the area for its residents and will be a more prudent plan for the city's success.

I'm fine even if the buildings don't change. I'm a fan of simplicity - that's why I liked the original WTC so much.

That being said, I also appreciate projects like the new-WTC, Shanghai WFC, etc.

Pretty much the only architecture I can't stand is anything by Frank Gehry. Good Lord.

UGLY Design. I am hoping that the design is changed.

The thread heading is wong btw. This isn't approved yet all that was done was the property changed hands. It still has to go through the community boards etc. This is only proposed.

What's the point of making such a big deal over the competition and wasting so much time and money if the CBs and NIMBYs will easily take it down? This project is quite stable as of now and has major governmant/political backing even though MS left. Isn't TS paying over a billion to make a platform soon? The CBs are only suggesting how to place the millions of square feet of space, not if or if not it should be built/how tall or big it will be. In fact, they are in favor of adding more residential space. They have MTA approval and have the right to build on it.

Just because they are building a platform doesn't mean it was approved. Thefact that they are building a platform means nothing because you need to build a platform to build anything on the site, including a one story building. If you read the articles out there it is clear that the community board wants to change some aspects of the plan when it is brought up in their meetings.

Just because they are building a platform doesn't mean it was approved. In fact that they are building a platform means nothing because you need to build a platform to build anything on the site, including a one story building. If you read the articles out there it is clear that the community board wants to change some aspects of the plan when it is brought up in their meetings.

Let's just move all of the NIMBYs out to the prairie here in North Dakota. I'll gladly switch places with them and problem solved! They will then have all of the clear sky they could want.

The Burj Dubai have a cost of Cost: US$800,000,000.00 for one tower. There are many other projects going on such like "dubailand" in Dubai. The development is expected to be a full featured city divided into seven theme worlds. The short range goal of the Dubailand is to attract 15 million tourists to Dubai by 2010. Developers expect to accomplish this goal by creating a tourism, entertainment, and leisure destination that will attract visitors not only from surrounding countries but also from Europe and Asia. The venture is expected to attract approximately 200,000 visitors daily and cost $20 billion. End dont forget the palmislands end the world in sea (US$ +/-60billion) and so on...

COSTING $20 Billion has nothing to do with the fact that NYC's public works BUDGET is $90 bill. Anyways, I'm interested in how all those new Dubai developments will be kept up once they start to rust. From what I've seen, Emiratis don't care about keeping up things as much as they care about building other ones on a fake island or in the middle of a desert. For example, look how unkept bur dubai is in comparison to the newer areas. As an additional piece of evidence, Emirates' 777 planes were sleek, and cutting edge 10 years ago, and now the seats are crappy and torny, while the planes are aging ungracefully as Emirates focuses attention to its new shiny toys: the a380 and a340. In Dubai, its in the with new, and to hell with whatever is +5 years old.

Shocking, there doesn't seem to be any opposition from anyhwere right now. The only major aspect of the project that people want to change is the amount of residential space as far as I know.

Shocking, there doesn't seem to be any opposition from anyhwere right now. The only major aspect of the project that people want to change is the amount of residential space as far as I know.

Guess there's enough green space to satisfy the NIMBYs... hopefully.

Well maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd think that NIMBYs would rather have a complex with small parks than a sprawling train yard. That area is rather bleak right now, so perhaps even the usual critics are thankful for a breath of fresh air in the neighborhood.

THESE ARE JUST PLACEHOLDERS, THE DESIGN IS TO SHOW THE SCALE AND LAYOUT OF THE PLAN. MAN... I THOUGHT YOU PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND HOW DEVELOPING A MEGA-PROJECT WOULD WORK, INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKING AT THE BUILDINGS AND BELIEVING THAT IS WHAT THE FINISHED PRODUCT WILL LOOK LIKE.

The article mentions Helmut Jahn as the architect. Would someone really go out of their way to design placeholders? I hope so...

Yeah there will likely be at least one or two phases of design after this. They have YEARS before construction.


How could one small firm design one of the largest complexs in the world in a few months? This is all early concept stuff. What's concrete is building location and building size, and where which types of buildings go and the height order, how the buildings are placed by height; everything else is in the air.

The Burj Dubai have a cost of Cost: US$800,000,000.00 for one tower. There are many other projects going on such like "dubailand" in Dubai. The development is expected to be a full featured city divided into seven theme worlds. The short range goal of the Dubailand is to attract 15 million tourists to Dubai by 2010. Developers expect to accomplish this goal by creating a tourism, entertainment, and leisure destination that will attract visitors not only from surrounding countries but also from Europe and Asia. The venture is expected to attract approximately 200,000 visitors daily and cost $20 billion. End dont forget the palmislands end the world in sea (US$ +/-60billion) and so on...

Exactly what I was saying. All the projects you have mentioned are funded by PRIVATE investors. The numbers I showed regarded PUBLIC investments. If you count the private money in New York, you can just think that the GDP of fiscal year 2005 was of 952.6 billion $. And that doesn't count external investments, that are estimated to be as much (if not more) than the public 90 billion (1 out of 10 jobs in New York is payed by a foreign corporation). Add the numbers up...

Oh, and one last comparison:
the GDP of the UAE (so adding up Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and the rest of smaller emirates) is of 145.8 billion (2007).
New York's GDP two years before(it has grown since then) is of 952.6 billion $ (2005) (Gross Metropolitan Product)
I hate to do comparisons, but when people talk nonsense, it is better to clear up things, before somebody's head becomes too big.

p.s. Since you talked about tourism, I'll add another number: 40 million tourists in a year.

Personally I think the project is a step in the right direction. That space was totally ugly and useless, wasted space in NY. Now it's finally going to be used to build something useful and help ease the residential market in NY (referring to the fact that it is hard to find a quality apartment). Ok the design isn't exciting but I guarentee you it will change most probably.


Exactly what I was saying. All the projects you have mentioned are funded by PRIVATE investors. The numbers I showed regarded PUBLIC investments. If you count the private money in New York, you can just think that the GDP of fiscal year 2005 was of 952.6 billion $. And that doesn't count external investments, that are estimated to be as much (if not more) than the public 90 billion (1 out of 10 jobs in New York is payed by a foreign corporation). Add the numbers up...

Oh, and one last comparison:
the GDP of the UAE (so adding up Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and the rest of smaller emirates) is of 145.8 billion (2007).
New York's GDP two years before(it has grown since then) is of 952.6 billion $ (2005) (Gross Metropolitan Product)
I hate to do comparisons, but when people talk nonsense, it is better to clear up things, before somebody's head becomes too big.

p.s. Since you talked about tourism, I'll add another number: 40 million tourists in a year.

This post is hands down the best one counteracting these Dubai cheerleaders that are swarming the forums. They're starting to claim that Dubai is a financial capital too in another post which is absolutely hilarious. And of course it'd be nice to see how the Dubai real estate bubble bursts and how the actual structures age. I've heard building quality is poor because they are built so fast.

Anyways. Since I just commited a sin and a blasphemy in these forums by not praising Dubai I'll make up for it....Hail Dubai!! The greatest city in the world!!

Isn't that the spot where the then-planned Jets Stadium was to be built?

And the plans don't even look like much more than sketches. I don't know how the city would feel with a commieblock looking kind of design, so I have no doubt whatsoever that it will change.

It's a concept plan not an architectural rendering, people! This is basically an urban planner's concept, not the building plans. I'm sure the actual towers will look vastly different from this. I'm also sure that in every one of the concept plans proposed the final buildings would have looked much different from the concept renderings. This is what people don't seem to realize about plans like this.

they're MASSING MODELS; calm down, skeptics.

Are you guys really sure thiese towers only show the massing models?It doesn't make much sense to change the design or shape of the towers after winning the competition.
And no,I don't like that shape,and it loooks too dense IMO.The best thing about this project is the little Decon. building we see close to the entrance.

WOW! B-E-A-uuuuuuutiful !!!!

i am so happy to see this land is finally going to be developed! i have been sitting back waiting for and announcement in what seems like forever, lol

:banana: Can't wait to see the final designs. The park in between them looks awesome.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2954/tishmasterplancopyfk7.jpg

yea, this will be amazing. the designs are going to change no matter what. this is what always happens in NY.

I think people should go look at the original renderings of the new WTC site and compare that to what we'll actually be getting. Those placeholder buildings can't hold a candle to what's actually being built and I'm pretty sure the same will be true here.

I think people should go look at the original renderings of the new WTC site and compare that to what we'll actually be getting. Those placeholder buildings can't hold a candle to what's actually being built and I'm pretty sure the same will be true here.

Hopefully when redesigns occur they won't go backward like the design of Freedom Tower did! It went from a beautiful innovative design to a box with an antenna stuck on top!

I think the status of the project should be proposed rather than approved.

It is true that Tishman submitted the winning bid to the MTA, but the MTA has nothing to do with approving buildings, and so far as I know no final designs of buildings have been submitted for approval.

NY needs this project, soon!!!

yeah, no point of even discussing or going back and forth off of these renderings....will definitely change...probably dramatically.

Are you guys really sure thiese towers only show the massing models?It doesn't make much sense to change the design or shape of the towers after winning the competition.
And no,I don't like that shape,and it loooks too dense IMO.The best thing about this project is the little Decon. building we see close to the entrance.

The scale, land use, and planning was more important in the competition than the models for the buildings. The TS design was the best of all of them in this respect. What good is it to have a great looking set of towers if at the ground level and waterfront, it's boring and out of scale. The TS design staggered the heights of the buildings to make it less wall-like to those on the ground level. They also had probably the best use of the high line as well as a nice waterfront and mixed use public space. I can't wait to see what the final designs for the buildings do look like though, I think it's going to be great and hopefully they can contrast somewhat to the Brookfield Towers and Girasole which are nearby.

OMG, SOM gets a one two punch in the face, first San Francisco:
http://www.gosunsolutions.com/images/8/somtransbayterminal.jpg
Then the rail yards:
http://www.archidose.org/Blog/hudson1.jpg

This is getting me upset, these beautiful organic SOM towers are being replaced by something else. At least this project is not hokey or ugly, just SOM was better IMO.

How can you go wrong with an architecture firm which designed Burj Dubai and Jin Mao and Big John and SEARS TOWER!!!!!

sorry but I bugged it, who could not remember Lever House.

It seems this is more than 'place holders' with the detailing of the facade on the rendering.

The two taller towers should end in a point then they would be like 1600 feet and breathtaking, as it is now, the plan appears nice, but the towers should be just a little bit taller!

SOM definitely should have won with their SF proposal, that would have been a sick addition to the skyline.

Listen up people, what was important was the layout of buildings, the site, and where the locations of each type of building go and how they interact with the area, not what they look like at this stage. In the coming years, we'll know that for sure. Anything could happen; this is the largest project in America now maybe ahead or behind the WTC. It may end up with no twins or with 1,800 foot tall buildings. This is something we have to wait out.

Im not feeling this one at all. not a very good choice, it won't really improve the area as much as i wanted it to (asthetically) like SOMs. I honestly don't even like it. sorry, i just thought NY was on a roll (of good looking buildings) but i guess those 'rolls' can't last forever. My expectations for this project were pretty high, and were let down. However, this part looks pretty good

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9573/capturewei1.jpg

MDguy, did you read the first post?

I'm pretty sure that these are placeholder designs. No use getting worked up over that aspect of the project.

They are and these plans now have plenty of time to grow; it's possible they could hire SOM or Rogers or Foster or anyone to design the skyscrapers.

Exactly what I was saying. All the projects you have mentioned are funded by PRIVATE investors. The numbers I showed regarded PUBLIC investments. If you count the private money in New York, you can just think that the GDP of fiscal year 2005 was of 952.6 billion $. And that doesn't count external investments, that are estimated to be as much (if not more) than the public 90 billion (1 out of 10 jobs in New York is payed by a foreign corporation). Add the numbers up...

Oh, and one last comparison:
the GDP of the UAE (so adding up Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and the rest of smaller emirates) is of 145.8 billion (2007).
New York's GDP two years before(it has grown since then) is of 952.6 billion $ (2005) (Gross Metropolitan Product)
I hate to do comparisons, but when people talk nonsense, it is better to clear up things, before somebody's head becomes too big.

p.s. Since you talked about tourism, I'll add another number: 40 million tourists in a year.

Imagine in 30 years after we've all switched to electric cars what dubai is going to be like. There's no way I'd go into the burj dubai, I question the quality of construction ($800 million dollars), man that thing's going to fall over... and it's ugly

^Seriously did Burj Dubai really have to show up in this thread? Even if it's to bash it, BD is not in NYC, and NYC is not Dubai. It is too early to start having 20 ghost pages.

On topic: I was a little dissapointed with this choice, hopefully we will see some new, updated renders on the actual towers, although I do like the effect the glass has in these renderings. NYC is amazing regardless, hopefully they'll definately make this development a stunning masterpiece! :cheers:

I swear half these idiots don't know how to READ

MDguy, did you read the first post?

well, no, but if they do choose this design, than ill copy and paste it again :D

I have a feeling that these designs will be completely redone. This is way to dull and regular for such a huge space and such an opportunity.

i Love it, its design is futuristic and beautiful.

is there a way mods can block all people in Dubai from entering NYC threads?

anyways, the Brookfield towers are being built just to the east of these, so I'm not sure why people are complaining about not getting Brookfield. Sure we don't get the whole complex, but we get the two signature towers at least.

I'm just glad they finally chose a developer so that they can start working on it.

I do hope that they keep the convention center looking thing though!

Imagine in 30 years after we've all switched to electric cars what dubai is going to be like. There's no way I'd go into the burj dubai, I question the quality of construction ($800 million dollars), man that thing's going to fall over... and it's ugly

When (if) we will stop using oil from the middle eastern countries, nothing will happen. Dubai's economy depends on oil exports only by 7%, so nothing dramatic will happen when they will finish it (the goverment has predicted that the reserves will finish in 20 years).

Another little comparison for those who praise the 800 million dollars of the Burj Dubai: project citycenter, that is not nearly as tall as the Burj D (even if you stack the towers on top of each other) is going to have a final cost of 8 billion dollars. (the difference is a result of numerous factors: difference in the cost of labor, of the materials, land....). So if you think this was chosen because it's the cheapest design (and please let me know where you have read the price of this construction) it would be nice if you just didn't post anything, untill you have something smarter to say. Because there cannot be a civil conversation when eyes are filled with blinding fanatics thoughts.
Silence makes a person look intelligent.

When (if) we will stop using oil from the middle eastern countries, nothing will happen. Dubai's economy depends on oil exports only by 7%, so nothing dramatic will happen when they will finish it (the goverment has predicted that the reserves will finish in 20 years).

Another little comparison for those who praise the 800 million dollars of the Burj Dubai: project citycenter, that is not nearly as tall as the Burj D (even if you stack the towers on top of each other) is going to have a final cost of 8 billion dollars. (the difference is a result of numerous factors: difference in the cost of labor, of the materials, land....). So if you think this was chosen because it's the cheapest design (and please let me know where you have read the price of this construction) it would be nice if you just didn't post anything, untill you have something smarter to say. Because there cannot be a civil conversation when eyes are filled with blinding fanatics thoughts.
Silence makes a person look intelligent.

I recently went to a lecture given by Andrew Winters, former vice pres. of LMDC. He said that he had been following this project closely, and that the only reason Tishman was chosen was because it was the lowest bidder.

edit

Tishman submitted the highest bid for the railyards iirc.

Tishman submitted the highest bid for the railyards iirc.

Yup you're right, type-o

worldarchitecturenews.com (http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2274)

West Side woes- billion dollar development project derailed

Not more than five weeks after New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) awarded the development rights to West Side Rail Yards to Tishman Speyer, the deal has collapsed. The deal for the billion-dollar development died on the vine Thursday when Tishman and the MTA reportedly reached an impasse. According to MTA spokesperson Jeremy Soffin, the cause of the impasse was: “Tishman Speyer's attempt to change a central deal term in an effort to postpone the closing on the Eastern Yard until the Western Yard was satisfactorily re-zoned.” He continued, “This demand changed the economics of the proposed deals and the certainty of payments to the MTA. The MTA remains committed to developing these unique and very valuable parcels of land.”

It is unclear where the project will go from here. One option for the MTA is to go back to the other bidders, but those bids were substantially less than Tishman’s $1 billion bid. Tishman is not completely out of the picture yet. The developer’s spokesperson, Robert Lawson, told the New York media: “This is a highly complicated deal and we have been negotiating in good faith with the MTA for several weeks. We share the same goal as the MTA and the City to transform Hudson Yards into a successful and vibrant community. We still hope to be able to complete this deal and reach an agreement that satisfies the needs of everyone.

Sharon McHugh
US Correspondent

typo

This thread is in the wrong section of SSC.
Supertall section is a place for "Discussions and progress updates on projects which include an occupable building at least 300m/1000ft tall"

Umm.....did you read the heading? 336m x 2. That is supertall last time I checked!

Umm.....did you read the heading? 336m x 2. That is supertall last time I checked!

wooops! my mistake :lol: only read the heights of the lower towers. i think i am a little " :nuts::cheers: " today

If they went back to the other bidders which one would be most likely to replace Tishmans?

Brookfield i guess

Brookfield i guess

How would you know?

Brookfield I think not they drop out, while the other just lost to Tishman Speyer. From what I understanding, Brookfield wanted to own and develope the land. While the MTA was only looking to lease the land. That why they planned their new project at the east side rail yard. I myself hope they choose Vornado/Durst I like their design. But something tell me everything with work it's self out.

How would you know?

learn english buddy, i said guess and not know ;)


and when i remember right, Brookfields plan was in the finalists

was in the finalists. They dropped out...

learn english buddy, i said guess and not know ;)


and when i remember right, Brookfields plan was in the finalists

My English (not english) is just fine. If you really wanted to answer Basincreek's question you could have given a reliable answer instead of just guessing.

Brookfield dropped out in February. (http://www.observer.com/2008/and-then-there-were-four-brookfield-out-west-side-yards-bid)

I can't wait to see what hapens here. Bloomberg fully supports this and all of the potential is still there. It's better that the delay part is happing now while they are working out bugs and not just after construction starts. I'm pretty sure it's going to be TS or

Durst, since they were first or second -

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1691_3_1000%20Durst%203.jpg

Man I really hope they don't screw this up. Durst's project would be very nice though, if Tishman really were to fail.

I hope Durst gets it, I've been crossing my fingers hoping Tishman Speyer mess this up. And it looks like they kick themselves in the ass. Durst was my favorite to begin with and they should have been the pick from the start. But I still see TS come to term with the MTA and getting this project off to a quick start.

Tishman is dead ^^ absolutely no more! Hopefully Durst will get it now.

Get ready for HUDSON YARDS III
http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/hudson-yards-deal-declared-dead

Hudson Yards deal declared dead

By James Kelly
5/13/08

The MTA has declared a $1 billion deal with Tishman Speyer to develop Hudson Yards dead, despite a last-ditch effort today to revive it.

"The MTA met today with Tishman Speyer. Despite the best efforts of both sides, a final agreement could not be reached," the agency said in a statement. "The MTA has now re-entered discussions with other interested developers and remains committed to timely development of these unique and valuable parcels of land on Manhattan's Far West Side."

Tishman Speyer, which requested a final meeting with the agency yesterday, said in a statement attributed to Rob Speyer, president, that it "negotiated in good faith with the MTA for the last several weeks regarding Hudson Yards and could not come to a final agreement that was satisfactory to both of us. This morning we informed the MTA that we are withdrawing from the process immediately so it can proceed in another direction.

"We appreciate the MTA's commitment to develop Hudson Yards into a great place for New York and wish it the best as it pursues other alternatives. We want to express our gratitude to Mayor Bloomberg for his extraordinary efforts and leadership through this negotiation to facilitate a deal."

The Durst Organization and Vornado Realty Trust, whose joint bid finished second to Tishman's, said today that they remain interested in pursuing the massive rail yards.

Jordan Barowitz, a Durst spokesman, said, "Hudson Yards is an interesting and exciting project for New York City, and we'd be interested in resuming discussions on the project's development. The MTA has called us. They called us this morning."

He declined to give any other details.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a statement, said, "I am disappointed a deal could not be made with Tishman Speyer to develop the Hudson Yards. This site represents one of New York City's best opportunities, and we will work with the MTA to move forward with another developer and ensure the potential of the area is realized."

Last Thursday the MTA's chief financial officer, Gary Dellaverson, said the negotiations broke off after Tishman insisted on changing the terms of their March 26 agreement. The change Tishman requested would have slowed payments in annual rent and fees to the cash-strapped MTA for the 26-acre site, the Times reported last week.

The city tried to allay concerns about funding for the extension of the No. 7 to Hudson Yards by assuring Tishman that it would pay for any cost overruns, Crain's reported. MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin told The Real Deal last week that the proposed deal included penalizing the MTA for any delays to compensate Tishman if the 7 extension didn't happen on schedule. He said that under the structure the MTA proposed, Tishman would get "rent holidays" -- periods during which it would not have to make agreed-upon payments to the MTA, which would still own the land -- "depending on the length of delay."

The deal's collapse will likely lead to the MTA getting less money for the property, which stretches across 11th Avenue between 30th and 33rd Streets.

__________________________________

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--westsidewaterfron0513may13,0,6376769.story

MTA talking with other developers on NYC's Far West Side

May 13, 2008

NEW YORK - The agency that owns 26 acres of rail yards on Manhattan's Far West Side is beginning talks with other developers after last week's failure of a $1 billion deal with Tishman Speyer Properties.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority met Monday and Tuesday with Tishman Speyer, trying to salvage a deal to build skyscrapers, apartments and cultural space over rail yards along the Hudson River. But the MTA said Tuesday afternoon it couldn't work out a deal and is talking again with other developers interested in the project.

__________________________________

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/talks-over-west-side-yards-collapse-again/?hp

Talks Over West Side Yards Collapse Again

By Charles V. Bagli
May 13, 2008

The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said in a statement: “While it is regrettable that talks to develop Hudson Yards have fallen through, we cannot let that deter our plan to create a thriving residential and commercial neighborhood on Manhattan’s West Side. Even in these challenging economic times, the western rail yards presents a once in a lifetime development opportunity. I look forward to working with the Mayor and the M.T.A. in the coming weeks as we forge ahead with our plan to develop Hudson Yards.”

Tishman Speyer had sought to delay closing on the rights over the yard on the east side of 11th Avenue until it got a zoning change for the western yard, a process that could take 18 months. Under the terms of the deal struck in March, Tishman Speyer would have paid $18.8 million at the closing for the eastern yard later this year, and $24.7 million for the western yard sometime in 2009 or 2010.

In an attempt to salvage the project, the transportation authority said it will now turn to three other developers — *Douglas Durst, Stephen Ross and Steven Roth — who had competed for the right to build a small city of office towers and apartment houses on a platform over the 26-acre rail yards.

“It’s an exciting and important project for New York City,” said Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for Mr. Durst, who had offered $39 million less than Tishman Speyer. “We would be interested in resuming discussions on its development.”

Well at least it looks like the MTA wants to get this done quickly. The break in the deal was reported yesterday and it seemed like the MTA was willing to try and work things out, but the very next day they get rid of Tishman! I really do hope that things move forward from here on out though, this is a major project that could really do a lot for NYC.

that good to hire bye bye Tishman speyer hello runners up. Lets shut this page down and start over brand new. Seeing this project by TS is now dead in the water, I can truly say it really suck. Now let's move on to something better, I say this is what TS gets for trying to get over on the MTA

Doors are all open for Durst. What ever happened to Extell?

Doors are all open for Durst. What ever happened to Extell?

lol who cares? hopefully they aren't interested because their proposal was the worst one.

What were the specifics of the Durst proposal again?

lol who cares? hopefully they aren't interested because their proposal was the worst one.

That's exactly what I thought. I'm worried they might actually have a shot at building on the rail yards. Bastards better stay low, that's all...

I've updated the first post, but until we get more news, it's fruitless to make new threads.

this thread should be deleted. Related is the new developer =\

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/developer-in-deal-with-mta-to-develop-west-side-railyards/

"According to one government official and a real estate executive who have been briefed on the deal, Mr. Ross, chief executive of Related Companies, signed an agreement Sunday night with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to develop 12 million square feet of office towers, apartment buildings and parks over the 26-acre railyards, which sit on both sides of 11th Avenue, between 30th and 33rd Streets."

At least related has a supertall...
and the best looking one too, but I want MORE!

Related got chosen?!?!:bash: They have a great supertall but the other buildings are so bleh. I'm disappointed once again:sleepy:

Ugh, Related's one supertall is barely a supertall at all. All the promise of that space and we get one measly building that is barely 1000 feet.

I love New York and it sad that the rest of the world is laughing at it over it's inability to build more supertalls than Dubai.

I sure hope they redesign their proposal into something that is so big, tall and intimidating it will shut up those that are laughing...... for awhile.

What could have been...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89339269/original.jpg

WRONG CHOICE. The chosen one looks like something proposed in the 70's. I can't believe they went for the worst one.

OMG, IT'S BEAUTIFUL !!!!!

dammit we are still getting those brookfield towers^^

stop griping about losing them lol

Agreed. Frankly I have a feeling Related is going to complete redesign their plan anyways.

I think they will most likely do so, and probably only after a new anchor tenant(s) is secured. Who knows, maybe News Corp will come back into the plan. I'm sure it will be interesting to follow the progress on this development, as it is a very important one for Manhattan... besides WTC, huge plots of land don't come along too often!

very modern yet sophisticated. a great addition to the ever changing skyline of new york.

Excellent proposal ! Lot of gardens is a great decision !

Seriously, this thread has been dead for a YEAR! Why bump this and 20 other threads that haven't had any posts for many months just to make a worthless comment? WHY! :bash: It makes other people start asking questions about the project thinking it is starting up again when there is really NO NEWS!:ohno:

This project will move forward eventually. It's been reported that MSG may be sold and MSG's owners were the obstacle to the prior plan. This is one of the most prime, major development sites in Manhattan.

Its approved?!

Its been approved as long as this thread been dead. That doesn't make it ok to bump the the thread.

Wow i can't believe this is approved. :banana:

if this is progressing then is the hudson yards project gonna get left behind, since they are close to eachother?

how do I break these to you, this is the hudson project. hey that was ez.

any news???

This one's on hold while the finacing and some other issues get worked out. It's too bad too because the MTA really needs the money from it but Tishman Speyer is a mess after their $5.3 billion investment in Stuyvesant Town crashed. For now, everybody is waiting for the market to firm up. It will get built, either by Tishman or someone else.

We don't know whats going to happen and they ask if there was any news last year.

Posted oh Curbed

Related Agrees to Pay for Hudson Yards ... SomedayAfter four delays in 18 months, the MTA has finally struck a deal with the Related Companies to develop the rail yards on the Far West Side into 26 mixed-use acres of skyscrapers and lawns known as Hudson Yards. But for those hoping that the long-awaited agreement would provide financial relief for the cash-strapped MTA and prevent subway fares from rising again in the near future, er, sorry.

The Observer's Eliot Brown runs through some key points in the deal, which still has to be approved by the MTA's board and signed by Related. The developer's rent payments on its 99-year lease don't begin until the deal closes, and the deal doesn't close until certain triggers are hit—like the Midtown office vacancy rate falling to 11%, and Manhattan apartment prices reaching an average of $1,200/foot for a sustained period. Might this be a 99-year lease that doesn't begin for 99 years? Well, the MTA can call in the deal whenever it wants, giving Related 90 days to close or else! Or else it, um, walks away from the risky venture and the MTA has to start over. 2019 never looked so far away, amigos.
· For Steve Ross, Rail Yards Rent Starts When Apartments Cost $1,200 a Foot

Some other links
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/nyregion/27hudson.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

that's nice!

Did u read the link, I really don't like post news for this reason.

When construction begins?