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 April 2nd, 2015, 09:49 PM   #5781
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

I don't really think NYC needs anything like that honestly. While Kingdom tower is way higher than WTC or Nordstrom it's also in a much smaller city with no other skyscrapers around it. Maybe I'm biased but I think the most impressive cities/skylines are huge with tons of buildings and supertalls.

The grass is always greener I guess...
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 2nd, 2015, 10:11 PM   #5782
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post

One day fellas when NYC can have a massively huge mega tall tower! Maybe when MSG eventually vacates?? That would be the only space available in NYC to accommodate such a tower, otherwise we will have to achieve it...the NYC way! A super-thin-Mega-tall skyscraper.

World's Tallest vs. New York's Tallest.

I love Nordstrom and the Freedom Tower far more than the Kingdom Tower but I have to admit that they look very underwhelming next to it. Design is very important, nobody can dispute that, however so is height. Height is the very definition of tall buildings, so no matter the design, height simply can't be ignored. Height isn't everything, but it still is something.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 2010's New York Boom, it's a great chapter in the history of the city, but it lacks the single most important part of a boom - a landmark tower. All the NYC booms in history had a lot of buildings with average height for their era, which we can see today too. Today's boom also has exceptionally tall buildings like Nordstrom, 432 Park, the Freedom Tower, 1 Vanderbilt or Steinway. The 1930's boom had these too (the Chrysler Building, the Rock, the AIG building, 40 Wall Street) and the 1970's boom had one as well (Citigroup). But there is one thing which both the 1930's boom and the 1970's boom had and which this boom so far has not - a landmark tower. The 1930's had the Empire State Building, the 1970's had the Twin Towers, but the 2010's still lack a building that would be far taller than anything else in the city.

The problem is that excatly such a building is the crown of a boom. This makes the 2010's boom analogous to a branch without a burgeon on top of it. The branch might be strong and healthy looking, but without its burgeon, it won't blossom and grow. The NYC boom is great, but no number of exceptionaly tall buildings can compensate for the lack of a landmark tower which is far taller than everything else arround it. Wood can support a branch, but it can't make it blossom.
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2015, 10:35 PM   #5783
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,780
Likes (Received): 31717

The Steinway Tower is without doubt the landmark of the 2010 boom It will be, in my opinion, as iconic as the Empire State and the WTC twins.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
JuanPaulo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2015, 10:53 PM   #5784
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I love Nordstrom and the Freedom Tower far more than the Kingdom Tower but I have to admit that they look very underwhelming next to it. Design is very important, nobody can dispute that, however so is height. Height is the very definition of tall buildings, so no matter the design, height simply can't be ignored. Height isn't everything, but it still is something.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 2010's New York Boom, it's a great chapter in the history of the city, but it lacks the single most important part of a boom - a landmark tower. All the NYC booms in history had a lot of buildings with average height for their era, which we can see today too. Today's boom also has exceptionally tall buildings like Nordstrom, 432 Park, the Freedom Tower, 1 Vanderbilt or Steinway. The 1930's boom had these too (the Chrysler Building, the Rock, the AIG building, 40 Wall Street) and the 1970's boom had one as well (Citigroup). But there is one thing which both the 1930's boom and the 1970's boom had and which this boom so far has not - a landmark tower. The 1930's had the Empire State Building, the 1970's had the Twin Towers, but the 2010's still lack a building that would be far taller than anything else in the city.

The problem is that excatly such a building is the crown of a boom. This makes the 2010's boom analogous to a branch without a burgeon on top of it. The branch might be strong and healthy looking, but without its burgeon, it won't blossom and grow. The NYC boom is great, but no number of exceptionaly tall buildings can compensate for the lack of a landmark tower which is far taller than everything else arround it. Wood can support a branch, but it can't make it blossom.
Height is impressive but so are megacities with many supertalls.

NY makes Jeddah look like a village and has far more tall buildings. Plus most buildings on the planet would look underwhelming next to that thing.


...
__________________

Philly Bud liked this post

Last edited by Jay; April 2nd, 2015 at 11:00 PM. Reason: typo
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2015, 10:53 PM   #5785
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4623

I'd say Steinway and the WTC (2 WTC) will be the landmark buildings of NYC's boom.
__________________
weidncol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:15 AM   #5786
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

I totally agree with that. Bar none, unless the Hudson Spire, 360 10th or 80 South comes up big. I'll put my money on 80 South as the top candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I love Nordstrom and the Freedom Tower far more than the Kingdom Tower but I have to admit that they look very underwhelming next to it.
I posted it because I wanted to show how absurd and amazing Smith Gill's Kingdom Tower will be and I agree with the posters above that EVERYTHING other than the 3 Freaks in that chart would make any towers look underwhelming.

So, I took the liberty of excluding the Tier 1 towers, aka the "Freaks" (Kingdom, Burj & Suzhou) and just compared the Tier 1A towers in the chart below and both 1 WTC and Nordstrom, imo are no longer underwhelming.

I honestly don't think we will ever see in NYC a 2000 foot plus tower, but I think a ~2000 foot one is realistic and it would be impressive compared to the tallest in the tier 1A stratosphere.


__________________
-------------------------



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 April 3rd, 2015, 12:29 AM   #5787
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4623

edit
weidncol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:30 AM   #5788
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

It doesn't have a Spire anymore!! lol. I knew it got a haircut but I did not know the spire got omitted. Yikes.
__________________
-------------------------



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 April 3rd, 2015, 12:38 AM   #5789
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
I totally agree with that. Bar none, unless the Hudson Spire, 360 10th or 80 South comes up big. I'll put my money on 80 South as the top candidate.



I posted it because I wanted to show how absurd and amazing Smith Gill's Kingdom Tower will be and I agree with the posters above that EVERYTHING other than the 3 Freaks in that chart would make any towers look underwhelming.

So, I took the liberty of excluding the Tier 1 towers, aka the "Freaks" (Kingdom, Burj & Suzhou) and just compared the Tier 1A towers in the chart below and both 1 WTC and Nordstrom, imo are no longer underwhelming.

I honestly don't think we will ever see in NYC a 2000 foot plus tower, but I think a ~2000 foot one is realistic and it would be impressive compared to the tallest in the tier 1A stratosphere.


Trust me, even a 3 000 footer is inevitable in NYC until this century ends. The question isn't if, the question is when, although so far I am not satisfied with the answer to that "when" question, judging by the fact that currently the tallest building proposed or under construction is 451 meters tall (and that is just three quarters the of the path to a megatall).Nordstrom and the Freedom Tower still look underwhelming in the diagram you posted above, especially if we consider that Pingan will be far taller than what it looks like there, since it was just the spire that got cancelled.

In my opnion even a thousand supertalls can't give a skyline as much as a single megatall can. Once the Kingdom Tower is complete, no ammount of supertalls in New York can compensate. New York will simply look underwhelming compared to Jeddah, just as now it looks underwhelming compared to Shanghai or Dubai. I love New York, I think it is a far better city with far better architecture than Shanghai, Dubai or Jeddah will ever be, however as a skyscraper fan I simply can't close my eyes in front of the simple fact that height wise, NYC is now in the second league. NYC and Chicago have the best designs in the world, NYC and Chicago have the best architectural history in the world, NYC and Chicago have the best urban planning in the world, but in height, they are second league now ........
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

Tommy Boy liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:40 AM   #5790
Wbino49
Registered User
 
Wbino49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NJ..I know...
Posts: 285
Likes (Received): 246

I'm not a ra ra American type but all those Asian towers look like some type of vibrator.

Plus talk about income inequity, do you know what kind of shack you would have to live in order to live nearby those towers. (nevermind the hum) lol

Not to mention the political climate.....but I digress...
__________________

Philly Bud liked this post
Wbino49 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:43 AM   #5791
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4623

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
It doesn't have a Spire anymore!! lol. I knew it got a haircut but I did not know the spire got omitted. Yikes.
No, that was my bad. I knew it got a height reduction, but I thought it was because they cut the spire. Turns out it's still going to be there.
weidncol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:49 AM   #5792
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wbino49 View Post
I'm not a ra ra American type but all those Asian towers look like some type of vibrator.

Plus talk about income inequity, do you know what kind of shack you would have to live in order to live nearby those towers. (nevermind the hum) lol

Not to mention the political climate.....but I digress...
And that is why I have written this:

Quote:
I love New York, I think it is a far better city
New York is lightyears ahead of Jeddah or Dubai in every concievable way except for climate and height. In my previous post I was criticizing only New York's lack of top class height, nothing more
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:55 AM   #5793
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post

In my opnion even a thousand supertalls can't give a skyline as much as a single megatall can. Once the Kingdom Tower is complete, no ammount of supertalls in New York can compensate. New York will simply look underwhelming compared to Jeddah, just as now it looks underwhelming compared to Shanghai or Dubai. I love New York, I think it is a far better city with far better architecture than Shanghai, Dubai or Jeddah will ever be, however as a skyscraper fan I simply can't close my eyes in front of the simple fact that height wise, NYC is now in the second league. NYC and Chicago have the best designs in the world, NYC and Chicago have the best architectural history in the world, NYC and Chicago have the best urban planning in the world, but in height, they are second league now ........


I could not possible disagree more. Obviously a one kilometer tower is insane but without a real city around it it's not as impressive as it could be.

Taipei 101 would dwarf anything in Sao Paulo or Tokyo (minus sky tree) and Taipei arguably looks relatively "underwhelming" next to those monster cities.

One building doesn't make the whole skyline more overwhelming in my opinion, a bunch of super talls do.
__________________

Eric Offereins, -Corey-, NatFan9 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 12:57 AM   #5794
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,341
Likes (Received): 8235

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
New York is lightyears ahead of Jeddah or Dubai in every concievable way except for climate and height.
you must be a masochist.
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015, 01:09 AM   #5795
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,341
Likes (Received): 8235

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
I could not possible disagree more. Obviously a one kilometer tower is insane but without a real city around it it's not as impressive as it could be.

Taipei 101 would dwarf anything in Sao Paulo or Tokyo (minus sky tree) and Taipei arguably looks relatively "underwhelming" next to those monster cities.

One building doesn't make the whole skyline more overwhelming in my opinion, a bunch of super talls do.
When you see a megatall, you forget everything around and just stare up in awe for a while. Shanghai Tower made SWFC look small even. The higher the building the exponentially more it gives to the city. I tried to score skylines based on that feeling as well rating a 300m building as 3 200m buildings and a 600m building as 15 200m buildings (all buildings just boxes without a spire). I'm still planning to redo a full overhaul of that system and filling it with data.
__________________

Shaddorry, Kanto liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2015, 10:21 AM   #5796
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,624
Likes (Received): 28178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
I could not possible disagree more. Obviously a one kilometer tower is insane but without a real city around it it's not as impressive as it could be.

Taipei 101 would dwarf anything in Sao Paulo or Tokyo (minus sky tree) and Taipei arguably looks relatively "underwhelming" next to those monster cities.

One building doesn't make the whole skyline more overwhelming in my opinion, a bunch of super talls do.
True, not to mention how a building functions at street level, how it fits in the city fabric, etc.
Most megatalls have no economic necessity and are just giant fallusses.
__________________

seb.nl, NatFan9 liked this post
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2015, 05:01 PM   #5797
madknight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: madrid
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 3

Is exactly the same height as 1WTC? Is there any reason why the two have the same height? Maximum height perhaps?
madknight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2015, 05:15 PM   #5798
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Quote:
Originally Posted by madknight View Post
Is exactly the same height as 1WTC? Is there any reason why the two have the same height? Maximum height perhaps?
Extell doesn't want to offend 1WTC's status as the tallest building in the city. There's a ridiculous gentlemen's agreement which states not to go any higher than 1WTC.
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2015, 05:37 PM   #5799
madknight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: madrid
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
Extell doesn't want to offend 1WTC's status as the tallest building in the city. There's a ridiculous gentlemen's agreement which states not to go any higher than 1WTC.
Thank you very much for the clarification.That means that all those who build henceforth can not exceed 541 meters ...
madknight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2015, 06:29 PM   #5800
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4623

I wouldn't say that. It's only a gentleman's agreement, nothing official.
weidncol 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 11:56 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