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 20th, 2014, 12:23 AM   #3841
LordGrantham
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 12
Likes (Received): 5

I look forward to seeing what will be built here, as I am interested in investment opportunities in NY.
LordGrantham no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 20th, 2014, 12:42 AM   #3842
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
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]
To be fair we are not 100 percent certain this will be 1424 feet yet, there may be some design changes and apparently the developer has some extra square feet added, only 6000 but it could add an extra floor maybe. (read that on SSP)
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 02:32 AM   #3843
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=04

Quote:
Work on Floor(s): SC1,SC2,SC3 001 thru 085
So down to 85 floors. Well that makes sense with the height decrease.
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 04:26 AM   #3844
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=04



So down to 85 floors. Well that makes sense with the height decrease.
I don't think we can go by that. If you look at the recent residentials in the city, most of them lowered their floor count in order to increase apartments' ceilings or even combine apartments (ex: 432Park). So I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions from that.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 01:47 PM   #3845
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,621
Likes (Received): 28174

still 1550 feet according to this document:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES221997350
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 05:26 PM   #3846
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Skyscraper Shadows Will Not Harm Central Park, Developer Promises
http://gothamist.com/2014/02/20/shad...ntral_park.php

Quote:
It's a comforting fact of New York City life that space in Central Park will never be allocated for towering high rise condos, glass-walled TD Banks or the upscale, alcohol-slinging Denny's that have become commonplace in so much of the city. But according to some, the threat of development destroying the park is still very real—not of physical structures being built in the park, but the shadows that such structures will cast from the outside.

A panel of stakeholders congregated at the New York Public Library last night to discuss the potential effects of shadows cast by the forthcoming "Millionaire's Row," a set of seven sky-high luxury apartments that many park-goers fear will prematurely darken soccer games and picnics with their omnipresent icy shade.
Among the panelists were Warren St. John, who penned an editorial on the topic for the Times last month, as well as Gary Barnett, the president of Extell Development, the company behind the shimmering new One57, the website for which declares itself "the tallest residential property in Manhattan" at 90 stories and 1,000 feet tall. Judging by which guy earned the most applause, the 500-person auditorium appeared to be predominantly packed with uneasy NIMBYs. The event had its own dedicated hashtag, #cpsupertowers.

The issues, the panelists insisted, are complicated. Zoning regulations are outdated and lack transparency, but what would changing them entail? Should buildings have height restrictions, or is a building's height less problematic than its width, or moreover, the number of tall buildings densely packed into a group? San Francisco has a "Sunlight Ordinance," which requires review by the city planning department of any proposed structure over 40 measly feet. Should New York City have such an ordinance as well?

Barnett, dressed in a Jobsian black turtle neck and clenching a venti Starbucks Drink, didn't have answers to any of those questions, but he did have a prepared statement intended to tickle the palpable sense of Liberal Guilt that pervaded the room. Not only would the shadows be "slender" (Extell generously narrowed the dimensions of One57 to a svelte 102 feet, versus the 225 feet they could have exploited were they Actually Evil), but the buildings will be an economic engine, creating more than 1,000 permanent, high-paying jobs for New Yorkers and their families.
"Is the possible small, minute addition of shadows that do no harm are a worthwhile tradeoff against our fellow New Yorkers' chance to build a better life? And for our city to grow and become greater?" Barnett asked from his turtleneck. "I think not. This is the wrong issue at the wrong time."

'I don't see any shadows, or poor people, from my 87th floor luxury pied-à-terre." (Extell)
Dissenters of the developments also argued that the towers would largely be occupied by foreign owners with little interest in the city—Russian oligarchs, Saudi oil barons—those types of people. "I think we need an oligarch tax on New York City," said State Senator Brad Hoylman, one of the panel's co-sponsors. "They're paying very little, and they're worth very, very much."

Barnett finds this argument prejudiced. New York City is a friendly place, he said, not just for the poor, but the rich and the mega rich.
"America has always been a very welcoming country—we want everyone to do well, he said. "We welcome the poor and the downtrodden, but we also welcome the wealthy, as well. There's nothing wrong with wanting to come here. There's no reason for us to knock other people."

There was a time, said St. John, a former reporter with the Times, when developers lobbied for curtailing Central Park at 72nd Street, using "economic benefit" as their argument. He said studies have shown the temperature difference caused by shadows could reach up to 20 degrees—what if we lowered the room temperature by that right now? The developments will do nothing to ease the city's housing crunch, and any economic gain is short term at best. He read a quote from the urban planner Jane Jacobs, who referred to shadows as "a great eraser of human beings." He concluded by showing a photograph of his young daughter frolicking on the sunlit grass. The audience cooed, and nodded in agreement.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 05:58 PM   #3847
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Approved: 217 West 57th Street
http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/02/appr...th-street.html



Quote:
217 West 57th Street's 1,550' massing diagram -- via the DOB

The Nordstrom Tower finally has all the approval permits necessary for verticality; besides the Art Students League’s overwhelming vote in favor of the air-rights transfer and cantilever, the development’s journey through the Department of Buildings also appears to be finished. Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill are designing the tower, while Extell is developing.

While the Art Students League vote was potentially up in the air, the DOB permits are more of a formality, given the tower is an as-of-right development. Though the ASL’s transfer of air rights seemingly confirms the vague renderings displayed during the tower’s journey through the Landmarks approval process, recent filings reveal the version that could rise to 1,550 feet, and 85 floors.

(read article in link)
__________________

desertpunk, Manitopiaaa, Xoltage liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 06:19 PM   #3848
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

Back up to 1,550 feet I see ...and it's peak seems to be going where Tower Verre was before Amanda Burden sunk her enameled claws into it.
__________________
We are floating in space...

Subsequence liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 07:26 PM   #3849
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,425
Likes (Received): 10277

I hope this means renders will be out soon
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

msquaredb liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 11:14 PM   #3850
(:
Registered User
 
(:'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 318
Likes (Received): 229

Is it officially back up to 1550'!
(: no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 11:32 PM   #3851
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Pff, were they also complaining about One Madison Park casting shadows over Madison Square Park?
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2014, 11:53 PM   #3852
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Woot? Well that sounds too good to be true, so I wouldn't get my hopes up. For now, it's just a possibility.
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 12:16 AM   #3853
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Is it really back up to 1550? I mean haven't had dob filling always included max 1550 ft 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


MarshallKnight, iamtheSTIG liked this post
patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 12:16 AM   #3854
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,504
Likes (Received): 6525

Fantastic news!
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 12:33 AM   #3855
AbdullahELHamza
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Mecca
Posts: 16
Likes (Received): 9

AbdullahELHamza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 01:00 AM   #3856
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordGrantham View Post
I don't think that this means that it will be 1,550'. It's too bad our old friend, the Hon. Sir Robert Walpole, isn't here to shed light on thiS issue.
He is here, he just signs up under new usernames after he was... waaaiit a second.


And I think we were all mislead, I think this tower will be 1430.

Never get your hopes up in NYC, I think we should have all learned this by now.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 01:34 AM   #3857
TheEnlightened
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.Y.C.H View Post
Sadly, Robert is to desperate, and has to make alternate accounts, it was a good couple of days, while he was gone. No real loss.
The past week or so that hes been gone has been one of the best since 2011. It was good while it lasted...
TheEnlightened no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 02:31 AM   #3858
N.Y.C.H
Registered User
 
N.Y.C.H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 407

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnlightened View Post
The past week or so that hes been gone has been one of the best since 2011. It was good while it lasted...
I agree
N.Y.C.H no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 08:14 AM   #3859
Nonoka
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 365
Likes (Received): 254

The design better be something stunningly good to justify the height increase.
Nonoka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2014, 09:29 AM   #3860
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonoka View Post
The design better be something stunningly good to justify the height increase.

It probably won't be...

Whenever we get great height in NY we get a terrible design, you just can't win.
Jay 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 06:06 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