SkyscraperCity Forum banner
952K views 2K replies 285 participants last post by  Zaz965 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Tishman Speyer has acquired a site at 435 10th Ave. near Hudson Yards for what will be a 61 story $3.2 billion tower. No renders or detailed plans are available at this time.

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

Previously as...

THE HUDSON SPIRE




Rendering of an imagined Hudson Spire at the Rosenthal site in Hudson Yards. Photo: MJM+A Archictects

Major site for sale at the Hudson Yards -
The block-long parcel on Manhattan's far West Side could trade for more than $200 million and host the city's tallest skyscraper—and its neighbor might sell, too.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140110/REAL_ESTATE/140119991

One of the largest development sites in Manhattan's Hudson Yards that could one day be home to the city's tallest skyscraper has hit the sales market.

The Rosenthal family has hired Massey Knakal Realty Services Chairman Bob Knakal and his colleague James Nelson to market a parcel it owns stretching from West 35th to West 34th streets between 10th Avenue and what will be a grand new thoroughfare running through the neighborhood called Hudson Boulevard.

That parcel can accommodate as much as 1.2 million square feet of space, including about 200,000 square feet of residential development.


Mr. Knakal and James Nelson are focused on selling just the Rosenthals' half of the land, which could trade for more than $200 million and can host up to 1.2 million square feet of development as well as reach 1,800 feet in height.


Those parcels are located at:
435 10th Ave., 507 W. 34th St. and 510-28 W. 35th St.

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

Also, the site sits directly next to another similarly sized piece of land owned by Sherwood Equities at 447 Tenth Avenue, which for years has planned to develop a single super-tower on the two parcels in partnership with the Rosenthals. Now that the Rosenthals are selling, Ryan Nelson (no relation to James), a senior vice president at Sherwood Equities who manages the company's acquisitions and sales, said it, too, will consider selling its parcel to either the buyer of the Rosenthal land or another purchaser.

Together the two sites could allow for an 1,800-foot mega-tower nearly 2.5 million square feet in size—what would be the tallest, and one of the largest, buildings in the city.

Most of that structure would have to be for commercial use under the area's zoning, either office or hotel space, but it also could contain a substantial residential component as large as 400,000 square feet.

Ryan Nelson said that the two sites together, however, would appeal to major developers who want to have a presence in the Hudson Yards neighborhood, where millions of square feet of development are either underway or in the planning. "Together these sites are one of the best commercial development parcels in the area," he said.





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




http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/02/new-renderings-hudson-spire.html


http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/02/new-renderings-hudson-spire.html










 
See less See more
7
#32 ·
I'm looking at the building for the first time and already I love it! Even though the current "design" is just a placeholder, showing what could be built, I like it more than the Hudson Yards North and South Tower (I like those buildings, but the North is just a little too fat and the South is cute and compliments the North Tower, but wouldn't be great by itself).

For it to be the tallest building in New York, it'd have to surpass 1 WTC (which is a confirmed 1,776 feet; I wonder how the 432 Park Avenue guys felt on November 12th!) So, It could be 1,777 feet for all that matters. And maybe they won't even add a spire, even though vanity height is a big thing worldwide. But if it's city's tallest building, it'd probably be a good 50 feet taller than 1 WTC, probably even more. So, if we have a 1,900 foot building by roof height, for example, New Yorkers would be thrilled too have a building like this.

But then again, let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height. And even if it does, it will never be a "serious" competitor in the world (let's say, top ten tallest buildings), because by the time this gets built, Kingdom Tower will almost be completed (and a bunch of other projects that have not been heard of as of early 2014).
 
#33 · (Edited)
let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height.
I completely disagree!

If there is a plot in NYC to build a mega tower, The Hudson Yards is the place.

The Far West Side of Manhattan is our gold rush as far as development. It's the Wild Wild West as this area had been rezoned to accommodate such projects as this.

There are no Nimby's to contend with because this area is pretty barren with nothing to protect. "Development" here is not a bad word.

This piece of land is jackpot. As of right project with no landmark committees to contend with, etc. right in the middle of one of the most exciting and emerging land development in the world.

This property will get snapped up quickly. This is the sort of project Gary Barnet would love. As of right development with no contention and already assembled.

360 Tenth Ave was bought by Frank McCourt for $170 million and Spitzer bought Alloys for $90 million when both properties where out in the market for 2-4 months tops only.
 
#40 ·
Barring another economic downturn, I don't see a scenario where someone wouldn't develop this site. I doubt there is anyone other site in the city that can offer you this amount of space, at that height, with much less hurdles and in a neighborhood that will be the next big thing in NYC. It's just a matter of which developer is looking for that trophy tower, and those aren't lacking in the city.
 
#48 ·


Hudson Yards Site Could Host Supertall
Two parcels of land in Hudson Yards, if developed together, could host a supertall tower that would surpass One World Trade Center at an astounding 549 meters. :cheers:

A parcel of land owned by the Rosenthal family, which stretches from West 35th to West 34th streets between 10th Avenue and the new thoroughfare Hudson Boulevard, is now on the market. Adjacent to the Rosenthal parcel is a site owned by Sherwood Equities, which may consider selling to the neighboring buyer.

Major developers are attracted to the monumental potential of the Hudson Yards site.

“Together these sites are one of the best commercial development parcels in the area,” said Ryan Nelson, senior vice president and manager of Sherwood Equities acquisitions and sales.

The zoning of the parcels supports commercial, office, hotel, and up to 37,161 square meters of residential space, for a combined total of 111,484 square meters.

http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/1123/language/en-US/view.aspx#!
 
#49 ·
Hudson Spire Brokerbabble



HUDSON YARDS—More details have emerged about the block-long development site near Hudson Yards that just hit the market. The gist is that whatever tower ends up rising there could be giant. By which we mean, up to 100 floors and 1,800 feet high, with 1.2 million square feet of residential, commercial/retail, and/or hotel space. Massey Knakal, which is selling the parcel, issued a release today: http://www.masseyknakal.com/pressrelease\635253094216605843.pdf (warning: PDF!) stating that "Hudson Spire" has an official address is 435 Tenth Avenue, facing the yet-to-be-created Hudson Boulevard, and runs from 501-507 West 34th Street to 510-528 West 35th Street. "Rarely does an opportunity become available to build a city's tallest tower, especially in New York City, which is known for its iconic buildings. The Hudson Spire could one day become the tallest building in the US, surpassing One World Trade Center," MK crows in its release. "An observation deck would be the ultimate addition."
 
#56 · (Edited)
#50 · (Edited)
That rendering by MJM+A architects was done only to depict the 1,800ft @ 1.2m sf tower because they were commissioned to imagine the full potential of this plot only which they are selling.

I would love to see a render of this Hudson Spire at 2.5 m sf, should Sherwood decides to sell their half. :cheers:
 
#63 ·
yea Funky! you may be right. it is hard to tell but looking again It does looks like the whole plot. I dunno. Maybe the blue half represents the Hudson Spire?? lol

The address 447 10th is located on the North East side of the plot, so I'm assuming Sherwood is the North half of the plot??

While 435 10th is on the South East side of plot so Rosenthal's piece is the Southern half.

Obviously they have 1.5 vs Sherwood's 1 m sf so the Rosenthal half for sale probably takes more than half.

If Sherwood does not end up selling they can build a skinny supertall by themselves. it is also quite possible they may offer a partnership with the new owner.

As we all now know this sites potential as a whole is 1,800ft max but they had chosen to propose a 305 m tower.

I'm starting to think it was the Rosenthals holding back and wanting it to be built to its full potential.

So the way I see it, it's a blessing in disguise Rosenthal wanting out and cash in. Just my .02 cents.

Now we may get 2 supertalls or 1 super duper tall! :)

Below is the HY map and I edited it to mark where other developments are.

 
#52 · (Edited)
I think VG is correct here, if you look at the site, you can clearly see that the tower only covers the left site of the parcel and the right site is left blank as if it isn't part of it, which is not the case when you look at the previous Sherwood proposal which included the whole site. So my guess is that they're clearly separating the 2 sites and the rendering is for a 1.2m sq/ft tower.

Sherwood's tower
 
#58 ·
I think VG is correct here, if you look at the site, you can clearly see that the tower only covers the left site of the parcel and the right site is left blank as if it isn't part of it, which is not the case when you look at the previous Sherwood proposal which included the whole site. So my guess is that they're clearly separating the 2 sites and the rendering is for a 1.2m sq/ft tower.

Sherwood's tower
[IG]Http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/4343/7455769367ed1dac6beofw2.jpg[/IMG]
If you are referring to the blue line at the base that is a result of the spectacularly shitty photoshop job it is.
 
Top