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 February 13th, 2014, 08:55 PM   #3821
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

agreed. I didn't think of that.

If they increase the height with the cantilevered version, It would probably end up being as narrow as the un cantilevered version for those block buster apartments.

The added bonus with the cantilever would just be for the benefit of those lower mid units.

Imo, height increase can still be a reality.

So theoretically wecould end up with the tower in the left except with cantilever. It would be very narrow though and maybe they can take some of thatfootage from that boxy base and re-distribute it to the upper level to make it a bit wider?? I dunno.


Last edited by Vertical_Gotham; February 13th, 2014 at 09:05 PM.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 13th, 2014, 09:08 PM   #3822
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 708
Likes (Received): 1875

220 CPS will still block views of the western quarter of Central Park from this tower below 1,000 feet, even with the cantilever. It looks like the eastern edge of 220 CPS is right in line with the western edge of Extell's tower. That means 220 CPS will be looming right across the street and blocking part of the Park.

It's hard to imagine that another 7 floors (totaling 125') of luxury apartments (selling for $50-90 million each) added to the top of the 1,423-foot version wouldn't more than make up the extra construction cost. But Extell also has to consider the allocation of the 1.211 million square feet of buildable space. As others have stated, if they stretch the tower from 1,423 feet (as in the latest pdf blueprints with the 1,550-foot height) the tower floor plates get smaller.

Many of us wanted to see a new tallest building in the U.S. with this tower, but Extell is primarily focused on profitability. And some of the cachet of "tallest" has been taken away with the CTBUH's ruling on WTC 1. "Tallest to the roof line" or to the "architectural tip" is a stipulation that is less attractive than just plain "tallest".
McSky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 09:18 PM   #3823
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

One thing nobody seems to take into account is that narrower, taller, but still cantilevered design can possibly bring some engineering problems making that option impossible or not worth the price. I mean we know the tower will hang over the art students league building by several meters. Now making it narrower means while the same part of the building still hangs in the air there is less tower to support it and by adding height there's even more stress put on the cantilevered portion. I think it won't go trough. Maybe if the tower could be still as fat as the lower version but as you guys noticed that can not be possible without increasing air rights.
__________________
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 February 13th, 2014, 09:19 PM   #3824
#99
Registered User
 
#99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 227
Likes (Received): 368

The cantilever mass model has so much more about it at the top, for that reason id rather it was shorter (if it is to look anything like that in the end)
#99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 09:21 PM   #3825
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

How about re-allocating buildable sq ft from the big boxy mid section. Trim the midsection and add it to the top for wider floor plates. The only section they can't touch is the nordstrom base which is like 5 stories?? Could that be enough to achieve 1550' with larger plates for the top?
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 09:24 PM   #3826
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 708
Likes (Received): 1875

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
One thing nobody seems to take into account is that narrower, taller, but still cantilevered design can possibly bring some engineering problems making that option impossible or not worth the price. I mean we know the tower will hang over the art students league building by several meters. Now making it narrower means while the same part of the building still hangs in the air there is less tower to support it and by adding height there's even more stress put on the cantilevered portion. I think it won't go trough. Maybe if the tower could be still as fat as the lower version but as you guys noticed that can not be possible without increasing air rights.

Good point. A "lever effect" could come into play regarding the force of wind on the extra height potentially added to the 1,423' tower. There's not much volume connecting the cantilevered tower to its base.

Another issue about the cantilever is how it relates to Nordstrom. I'm not sure how the main supporting columns in the bottom 6 floors of the building would be re-located in the cantilever versus non-cantilever version.
McSky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 09:36 PM   #3827
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,340
Likes (Received): 3585

This is the other point I wanted to bring up, but I wasn't sure about the engineering details. I remember reading somewhere that ~ 2/3 of the mass of the tower had to be located over the main building, and that max. 1/3 could be hanging over the ASL, but I'm not sure what the source was on that.

Basically, it seems like the narrower and taller the tower gets, the tougher the engineering challenge of cantilevering it would be. Maybe someone with a more technical engineering background can weigh in.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 09:44 PM   #3828
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

Bottom line is we're stuck to that grotesque massing. I very much doubt we'll see much of a height increase at the exception of a crown.
The only good thing about it is that paperworks were approved so this tower seems like a go, so we should see some renderings in the not too distant future.... Then we can move on to more interesting towers rising like TV, 56Leonard, 220CPS, the Pyramid, the HYs, 3WTC, Shop's east side twin towers and hopefully Steinway
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 10:07 PM   #3829
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488



Based on this drawings for the older design, it looks like they achieved the 1550' without making it look so thin because there is no boxy mid section. They can't achieve this with the cantilever??
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 11:11 PM   #3830
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostface79 View Post
Bottom line is we're stuck to that grotesque massing. I very much doubt we'll see much of a height increase at the exception of a crown.
The only good thing about it is that paperworks were approved so this tower seems like a go, so we should see some renderings in the not too distant future.... Then we can move on to more interesting towers rising like TV, 56Leonard, 220CPS, the Pyramid, the HYs, 3WTC, Shop's east side twin towers and hopefully Steinway
Yes, the massing is really bad. I know that Extell doesn't care about building a new tallest, but it's still a loss. The tallest 57th street towers are all in the same height range (~1,400ft), meaning there's not really a tower which stands out, heightwise.

Looking back, NYC has a strange history of height increases and decreases. The smaller buildings (700 - 900ft) mostly get a height boost, whereas the supertalls tend to get a haircut (with some exceptions of course).

The most important ones:
- Nordstrom Tower: down from 1,550 to 1,424. [ft]
- 432 PA: down from 1,420 to 1,396. [ft]
- 30 Hudson Yards: down from 1,337 to 1,227. [ft]
- Tower Verre: down from 1,250 to 1,050. [ft] (most tragic)
- 3WTC: down from 1,240 to 1,170. [ft]
- GiraSole: down from 1,060 to 1,034. [ft]
- 10 Hudson Yards: down from 1,017 to 895. [ft]

The exceptions:
- 111 West 57th St: up from 670 to 1,350. [ft] (most surprising)
- 35 Hudson Yards: up from 900 to 1000. [ft]
- 4WTC: up from 950 to 977. [ft]
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 11:34 PM   #3831
Funkyskunk2
Registered User
 
Funkyskunk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 808

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
[IG]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7d/d3/91/7dd391790428b312ef2119ebc66e7a21.jpg[/IMG]

Based on this drawings for the older design, it looks like they achieved the 1550' without making it look so thin because there is no boxy mid section. They can't achieve this with the cantilever??
They should be able to if it isn't too expensive. They can always make it super thin north-south like 220.

RW has said it was only a massing. That combined with Barnett saying he might build to 1550 even with the cantilever makes me hopeful something like the second one I've drawn will rise.



One57 and 111 both have giant crowns; maybe we'll have another.
__________________
Funkyskunk2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2014, 11:56 PM   #3832
jose eliseo
Deportes Tolima el mejor!
 
jose eliseo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ibagué
Posts: 10,106
Likes (Received): 2524

I like new york and edifices because they have good height

¡Greetings to all from Ibague Colombia!
__________________
███████
███████

♬♪ Guia De Threads Del Departamento De Tolima ♩♬

♫♩ Guia De Threads De La Ciudad de Ibague ♪♫

███████
███████
███████

SkyscraperIbague Facebook
jose eliseo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2014, 12:11 AM   #3833
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11 View Post
I guess we'll just ignore the fact that this tower is still over 400m tall and will join another four 400m+ buildings in the next decade.

The US and pre 9-11 NYC have had 400m buildings since the 70's, something taller is needed to really stand out.

obviously there's nothing wrong with 400 meters but still, this was our chance to be the US's tallest building.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2014, 01:11 AM   #3834
nbrandwein
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
The US and pre 9-11 NYC have had 400m buildings since the 70's, something taller is needed to really stand out.

obviously there's nothing wrong with 400 meters but still, this was our chance to be the US's tallest building.


Agreed. It really and truly seems like a lost opportunity if it doesn't come to pass. With so many "trophy" apartments coming to the NY market in the next 5 years one would think Extell would be almost desperate to distinguish itself and be able to market the cache of tallest-to-roof building in the US or tallest livable residence in Western Hemisphere with the best views. I will (foolishly perhaps) hold out hope until new renderings prove otherwise.
nbrandwein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2014, 09:47 AM   #3835
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,084
Likes (Received): 3616

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
This is the other point I wanted to bring up, but I wasn't sure about the engineering details. I remember reading somewhere that ~ 2/3 of the mass of the tower had to be located over the main building, and that max. 1/3 could be hanging over the ASL, but I'm not sure what the source was on that.

Basically, it seems like the narrower and taller the tower gets, the tougher the engineering challenge of cantilevering it would be. Maybe someone with a more technical engineering background can weigh in.
Still just studying and by all means not an expert, but a cantilever wouldn't be much of a problem, all things considered. In many regular skyscrapers, the weight of the building is all transferred to the building core anyway, and the outer walls carry only their own weight. At (usually) regular intervals up along the tower, heavy cantilever beams attached to the core carry the weight of a few floors above. Imagine a wall-mounted cupboard filled with plates. The weight of those plates is distributed across a number of shelves, each transferring the weight of its stack to the wall. If all the plates were placed in a single stack, the bottom-most plate would crack under the weight, but by distributing them over several stacks in separate shelves, one can still have loads of plates above another.
The same principle can be applied to buildings. Heavy cantilever beams carry a few floors above, leaving the floor below the beam practically free of any vertical loads. If the beams are made strong enough, no force will be transferred from a bearing beam to the floor below it.
This means that it doesn't matter whether there even is a floor below the bearing beam or not. As long as the core carries all the weight, the rest of the building has no structural importance. Your cupboard wouldn't fall apart if you removed the plates from the lowest shelves. Cantilevering a building like this proposal in NY simply means not building any floors between the ground and the first bearing beam. Yes, doing it this way requires a special building design, but once that design is applied, you could put in cantilevers wherever you want. Look at Pentominium, for instance. Cantilevers aplenty, though on a small scale.
__________________
Poe's law: You can't impersonate stupidity without somebody mistaking it for the real thing.

WillBuild, Vertical_Gotham liked this post
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2014, 12:04 AM   #3836
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

So they can do it like this...I just reversed the upper portion so it can have the cantilever for this design. So now the crown slopes to the East.

Revised with Cantilever



Original design without


It's possible to have 1550' reversed with this design
__________________

Funkyskunk2, MarshallKnight liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2014, 12:21 AM   #3837
Funkyskunk2
Registered User
 
Funkyskunk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 808

If you haven't noticed, the grey model seems to suggest the crown would be reversed. I think it would make sense to do so, looks more balanced.
Funkyskunk2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2014, 02:40 AM   #3838
(:
Registered User
 
(:'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 318
Likes (Received): 229

Didn't they say something about the crane logistics being impossible? When the first design was proposed?
(: no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2014, 11:43 PM   #3839
600West218
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,734
Likes (Received): 1574

Went by the site yesterday and excavation work is definitely progressing. The hole is deep enough that you can't really see the excavators down in it. They have clearly been creating a concrete wall along the 57th street side to support the excavation.
600West218 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2014, 11:39 PM   #3840
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 hunser View Post
Looking back, NYC has a strange history of height increases and decreases. The smaller buildings (700 - 900ft) mostly get a height boost, whereas the supertalls tend to get a haircut (with some exceptions of course).

The most important ones:
- Nordstrom Tower: down from 1,550 to 1,424. [ft]
- 432 PA: down from 1,420 to 1,396. [ft]
- 30 Hudson Yards: down from 1,337 to 1,227. [ft]
- Tower Verre: down from 1,250 to 1,050. [ft] (most tragic)
- 3WTC: down from 1,240 to 1,170. [ft]
- GiraSole: down from 1,060 to 1,034. [ft]
- 10 Hudson Yards: down from 1,017 to 895. [ft]

The exceptions:
- 111 West 57th St: up from 670 to 1,350. [ft] (most surprising)
- 35 Hudson Yards: up from 900 to 1000. [ft]
- 4WTC: up from 950 to 977. [ft]
Dang! 432 PA was supposed to be 1,420' and 10 Hudson originally at 1060'? I did not know that.

Also to be fair about the GiraSole, I'm not sure where that 1,060ft figure came from.

My big disappointments are Tower Verre and 30 Hudson. The jury is still out on the Nordstrom.

But to add to the list of your exceptions:
- 22 Thames Street: up from 637’ to 882’
- 30 Park Place: up from 912’ to 937’
- 15 Hudson Yards: up from 844’ to 910’
- 220 Central Park South: up from 920’ to 950’
- 425 Park Avenue: up from 687’ to 905’

the trend suggests that the residential's see the height increase while the commercial's get the haircut. In this current boom, residentials' are king.
Vertical_Gotham 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 09:13 AM.


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