daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 25th, 2013, 06:57 PM   #3221
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

I just said. Similar proportions with the CCs77 model.

But if you don't buy it several days ago i also took the the height of the spot where cantilever starts (we have plans for it) and I calculated from proportions the white model is around 500m which I wrote about here in this thread too.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 25th, 2013, 07:00 PM   #3222
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

^ Thanks! A couple days ago seemed so long ago. Got ya.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2013, 07:37 PM   #3223
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,884
Likes (Received): 2461

Quote:
Originally Posted by t94 View Post
My goodness, reading the last few pages you'd think this community was composed of spoiled little children.
The idea that we that we should somehow be "thankful" for getting a particularly tall tower and that it, by virtue of its superlative height and its consequences for the construction of other tall towers, can brush aside any concerns of subpar design, is not only misguided, but dangerous.

We live- or at least I live- in New York, not China, where the national obsession appears to be constructing things for the sole purpose of garnering superlatives of dubious origin (the world's "largest steel framework sculpture", anyone?), and I am glad of it. I do not like tall towers for the numbers they provide- height, floors, number of supertalls- but rather the statement they make, the addition to the skyline.

I'm not passing judgement on the building's design, I haven't seen it properly. What am I saying is that its height cannot excuse a poor design; indeed, it necessitates a good one! If it is to be prominent, then surely you can all agree it should be aesthetically pleasing. The idea that such a building should somehow be conservative in design is at odds with its total lack of a conservative presence, no matter how staid the design it will stick out because it is so tall.

Furthermore, I'd disagree strongly with the idea that put forth by SomeKindOfBug, that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
When you start thinking of every skyscraper as its own unique flower, you end up with Shanghai or Dubai. Interesting, from a design standpoint, but on a larger scale a bit of a mess. A hodgepodge of all different styles, with no cohesion or sense of an overarching plan. New York is not like that. Each building has been carefully designed to fit within the larger environment. They are contextualized in a way many other cities aren't.
That's simply untrue. New York is far more dissonant architecturally than any of those cities. I mean look at lower Manhattan, with its Beaux-Arts towers, its Art Deco skyscrapers, modernist, post modernist. It's very dissonant- yet it works. Who would say the Woolworth Building, 40 Wall Street, the American International Building, Chase Manhattan Plaza, 60 Wall Street, or the World Trade Center, both new and old, are "conservative" or "contextual"? New York's strength is its architectural diversity.

Those other cities fall short because the architects are working within the same framework, and their failures are less to do with lack of conservatism than the inherent failures of the modernist language of design. There was a little dessine by Leon Krier that I think encapsulated the idea quite well:


The historic and diverse framework, the mass of New York's building stock, enables further diversity and innovation in a way modernism's stock of square towers does not. That's one reason why we need to keep on building new buildings in a traditional style, because it is with them you can have dissonance without discord. It's why London's City, with it's "Shard", "Gherkin", "Cheesegrater", and "Walkie-talkie", despite their own dissonance, remains aesthetically pleasing in a way many others are not. It's a sort of recursive NIMBYism, that supposes there is a requirement towards staid architecture, and it's why I think you see American skyscrapers these days are more staid than ones in Asia. The most egregious example is the victory of Pelli's design for the Transbay Tower over SOM's fantastic scheme. Tall buildings have a right, if not a requirement, to be innovative and assertive. Otherwise, it's a bit like a big... err... thing... that...uh... can't... I'm sure you get what I'm saying. It's big and there but ultimately disappointing and useless.

The building is not meant to be a "stepping stone" to taller ones, and if that's what you get from it, that it simply serves to open the door to other buildings then you're admitting it doesn't have much merit on its own. And that's a travesty. New York deserves more than that. Again, I'm not saying I dislike the building- I simply haven't seen enough of it to pass judgement on it- but I think it's not right to "give it a pass" because it's tall. That, if anything, would banalise New York to something more akin to Dubai or whatnot.
__________________
(Don't forget Ethiopia and NYC, too!)

Last edited by Simfan34; October 25th, 2013 at 07:44 PM.
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2013, 09:11 PM   #3224
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Friends, the supertall boom in NY has only just begun. (It's odd that a certain prairie city isn't on this list.)

1. Steinway (1,350')
2. HY North 1,350'
3. 1 Vanderbilt (1,200'+)
4. Verre (1,050')
5. E-tower (950'),
6. Coach (905')
7. 22 Thames (875')
8. 425 Park (900'+)
9. 220 CPS (920')
10.30 Park (940')
11. 2 Hudson Blvd (1000'+)
12. Sherwood (1000' +)
13. 360 10th (900'+)
14. Girasole (1, 000'+)
15. 650 Madison (900' +)
16. Park Lane (900'+)
17. MTA (900'+)
18. St. John's site (900'+)
19. 80 South St. (1, 000'+)
20. 3 WTC
21. 225 W 57th
22. One 57


From the 25 Oct. 2013 WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...43750789705062

Where in the World Top Buyers Shop

The strongest home purchasers tend to look for property investments in tried-and-true markets that offer both low risk and some potential for price appreciation. Outside of such safe havens, shoppers tend to buy in or near their own areas

Foreign buyers are willing to pay top dollar for second homes abroad, but the location needs to be a safe bet, according to a coming report on foreign ownership.

Foreign buyers are willing to pay top dollar for second homes abroad, but the location needs to be a safe bet, according to a report by global property consultancy Knight Frank. Getty Images/Flickr RF

About 47% of prime home buyers are drawn to locations they view as solid investments, according to a report by Knight Frank, a global property consultancy based in London. To buyers, locations such as London and New York are protected from economic and political risk, plus offer potential for property appreciation.

High-end buyers seek out tried-and-true places because they are still reeling from the economic downturn five years ago, says James Price, head of international residential development at Knight Frank who worked on the report. "They want liquidity. They want the best places to invest and be secure," he says. "The reasons London and New York are very popular is they are two genuine safe havens."Buyers looking for trophy assets may be willing to try a more offbeat locale for lifestyle features, but that isn't a typical motivation, he adds.

Knight Frank's Global Development Insight report, set to be released Friday, looks at buyer requirements for prime, newly built residential properties. The report—based on Knight Frank search data, sales data and survey responses from 54 individuals world-wide—ranked the leading countries from which buyers originate, and the most common sales locations and prices.

Latin American buyers are big players in Miami, but they aren't ranked in Knight Frank's list, says Mr. Price.

The strongest home purchasers tend to look for property investments in tried-and-true markets that offer both low risk and some potential for price appreciation. Outside of such safe havens, shoppers tend to buy in or near their own areas.

Outside of the safe havens, buyers tend to buy in their own regions, the report shows. Buyers in China are the most significant purchasers of prime new-build properties internationally, spurred by a strong yuan and slowing domestic economy, the report says. Although their interest extends to properties in New York and London, their primary interest remains regional, the report shows.

In Russia, which ranked third on Knight Frank's list, buyers look abroad after exhausting local options. "They already have property portfolios in Russia—a city home, a country home—and then they're looking for another property abroad," says Elena Yurgeneva, director of residential at Knight Frank in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Write to Sanette Tanaka at [email protected]

Last edited by RobertWalpole; October 25th, 2013 at 10:21 PM.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2013, 10:00 PM   #3225
jconyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 416
Likes (Received): 168

Robert, I don't see 225 on your list!
jconyc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2013, 10:26 PM   #3226
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
Friends, the supertall boom in NY has only just begun. (It's odd that a certain prairie city isn't on this list.) World Class

1. Nordstrom (1,423)
2. Steinway (1,350')
3. HY North 1,350'
4. 2 WTC (1,350)
5. 1 Vanderbilt (1,200'+)
6. 3 WTC (1,170)
7. Verre (1,050')
8. 2 Hudson Blvd (1000'+)
9. Girasole (1000'+)
10. Sherwood (1,000' +)
11. 80 South St. (1,000'+)
12. 1 Manhattan West (950+)
13. 2 Manhattan West (950+)
14. E-tower (950')
15. 30 Park (940')
16. 220 CPS (920')
17. Coach (905')
18. 425 Park (900'+)
19. 360 10th (900'+)
20. 650 Madison (900'+)
21. Park Lane (900'+)
22. MTA (900'+)
23. St. John's site (900'+)
24. 22 Thames (875')
25. D-tower (844)
Amended!

Lurking around the corner for supertall candidates is Wanda and Shvo Central Park.

Last edited by Vertical_Gotham; October 25th, 2013 at 10:45 PM.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2013, 11:32 PM   #3227
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

MAS Testifies at Landmarks Preservation Commission on 215 West 57th Street
http://mas.org/mas-testifies-at-land...st-57th-street

Quote:
On October 22, after a long and lively public hearing, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted (6-1) to approve a cantilever over the landmarked Art Students League building. The cantilever is part of Extell’s 215 West 57th Street development, a 1,400 foot tall building that will house a hotel and condos above Nordstrom’s. This building is essentially as-of-right except for the applications to cantilever over the landmark and restore storefronts on the landmarked 1780 and 1790 Broadway buildings.

Almost 30 people testified at the hearing. The opponents included MAS, the Landmarks Conservancy, HDC, Landmarks West, some neighborhood residents and individual members of the Art Students League (ASL). The speakers in favor included staff and members of ASL, a representative of the Hotel Union, AIA New York chapter, and a devoted Nordstrom’s shopper.

MAS’ testimony emphasized our concern that there has been no public planning or review process for any of the six hyper tall towers to be located within a few blocks of each other along or near 57th Street. Each of the buildings is as-of-right, but used “excess” development rights from existing buildings elsewhere on the block. Consequently, there has been no environmental review for these projects, which would have disclosed to the public information regarding potential shadows on Central Park and conflicts related to transportation and construction. Generally speaking, MAS supports as-of-right development but we believe that these 1,000+ feet tall towers are unintended consequences of older zoning that did not contemplate such tall heights, mid-block sites and small floor plates.

Understanding that LPC’s jurisdiction is quite narrow in this instance, MAS highlighted potential issues related to the proposed cantilever, including inadvertent environmental problems that storms, rain and snow could cause to the roof of the delicate and aged Art Students League building. We and others expressed concern about the effect of the glass tower on the light in the artists’ studios. There was concern about the effect construction would have on the programming at the landmark and possible loss of membership during that period. Many expressed concern about the visual intrusion of the cantilever over the landmark.

Those in favor of the project testified that the cantilever would be invisible and would not be detrimental to the landmark or the studios’ light; in support of the new department store; that the money that ASL would receive from Extell would be sufficient to support their programs and building well into the 21st century.

After the hearing, the Commission approved the cantilever, with a majority of the Commissioners (six present) stating that they believe that because the cantilever is almost 300’ from the street, it will not be visible in the same viewing plane as the ASL. One Commissioner, Michael Goldblum, voted against the cantilever.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2013, 11:38 PM   #3228
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

So looks like what we see is what we get. Those extra 80 feet would have been nice, but oh well. We'll still get a city's tallest.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 12:22 AM   #3229
OnePointWest
Riemanns Hypothesis
 
OnePointWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New York,New York
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 1128

Should have made the "D" Tower a little bigger, if you know what I mean.
OnePointWest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 12:28 AM   #3230
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Finally something on topic in this thread. So we know what the base will be like. I'm not pleased but let us see the rest of the tower now.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 12:42 AM   #3231
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnePointWest View Post
Should have made the "D" Tower a little bigger, if you know what I mean.

It just may! last month Diller Scofidio + Renfro talked about the design of "D" Tower and discussed going through the process how tall and wide this will end up being and ultimately they decided on 900ft tall.

The discussion starts on 22:53



My apologies...OT here.



__________________

Funkyskunk2 liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 01:12 AM   #3232
CCs77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 2436

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
Nice! Could you put Tower Verre in there?? you know... just for kicks?
I added Tower Verre and 220 CPS I thickened 432 Park aswell.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
__________________
CCs77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 01:17 AM   #3233
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Wow! Nice job.
__________________

CCs77 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 04:11 AM   #3234
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

image hosted on flickr

Monitor Encendido
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 05:44 AM   #3235
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Great job CCs77!
__________________

CCs77, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 06:58 AM   #3236
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

NY's oldest structure, a 4,000 yo obelisk.


ZippytheChimp
__________________

L.A.F.2., ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2013, 11:22 AM   #3237
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
I added Tower Verre and 220 CPS I thickened 432 Park aswell.

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/9315/qn7g.jpg
As I thought Tour Verre appears little compared to the big three

Can you make 225 432m to see how it will look in the skyline with that height?
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C


ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by patrykus; October 26th, 2013 at 11:27 AM.
patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2013, 12:00 AM   #3238
Subsequence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 198
Likes (Received): 50

,,,
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by Subsequence; March 8th, 2017 at 04:50 PM.
Subsequence no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2013, 12:06 AM   #3239
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subsequence View Post
Will Gary make this tower taller? According to a user from another site..
It's entirely possible, since units without great views aren't selling at One 57. In fact, he stated that he might build to the full 1550 even with the cantilever.
__________________

Subsequence, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2013, 04:17 AM   #3240
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
The idea that we that we should somehow be "thankful" for getting a particularly tall tower and that it, by virtue of its superlative height and its consequences for the construction of other tall towers, can brush aside any concerns of subpar design, is not only misguided, but dangerous.

We live- or at least I live- in New York, not China, where the national obsession appears to be constructing things for the sole purpose of garnering superlatives of dubious origin (the world's "largest steel framework sculpture", anyone?), and I am glad of it. I do not like tall towers for the numbers they provide- height, floors, number of supertalls- but rather the statement they make, the addition to the skyline.

I'm not passing judgement on the building's design, I haven't seen it properly. What am I saying is that its height cannot excuse a poor design; indeed, it necessitates a good one! If it is to be prominent, then surely you can all agree it should be aesthetically pleasing. The idea that such a building should somehow be conservative in design is at odds with its total lack of a conservative presence, no matter how staid the design it will stick out because it is so tall.
But it's not a poor design. People that can't see the quality in minimalism are usually too superficial to recognize it anyway. I could see people complaining about it if was something that detracted from New York. Something Dubai-ish or Shanghai-ish, but it doesn't. It's a streamlined structure that fits well with the upcoming post-2020 skyline. I think we got a very solid product and people are still complaining about it.
__________________

Mahogany, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by t94; October 27th, 2013 at 04:29 AM.
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
217 west 57th street, 225 west 57th street, central park south, cps, extell, new york, nordstrom tower, nyc, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu