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 July 29th, 2016, 10:12 PM   #7221
NYStruct
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
What stake does the government have in preventing a taller building than 1776'?
NYC DOB could invoke some obscure zoning regulation and do whatever they want. Without denying it outright they could also delay the permits forever by scrutinizing various issues that would seemingly have nothing to do with it.

For any building above 1776' that would "dethrone" WTC#1, I can pretty much guarantee you that the final say will come from the mayor's office (directly or indirectly), and I don't think a mayor would want to put up with the controversy of having the symbol of recovery & reconstruction after 9/11 being "outclassed" by a private developer just for gain. At least not for some time and while the wounds are just starting to heal.

This is the only reason why the spire was supposed to go "only" to 1775' in the first place. The developers decided not to go higher because they knew they would run into some resistance otherwise, and if the permits had been delayed by 3 or 6 months by a bureaucratic quagmire with DOB, the project would have been dead in the water before even starting.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
NYStruct no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 29th, 2016, 10:47 PM   #7222
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYStruct View Post
Ain't gonna happen.
1 WTC will likely remain the tallest building in NYC for a long time due to the symbolism and emotional charge. Roof level may be higher (such as 432 Park) but permits to go higher than 1776' would likely be denied.
There is no official law stating a building can't be higher than 1776'. It's more of a de facto agreement just like City Hall in Philadelphia, and that didn't last forever.

Gary might run into some resistance but if he did it secretly he could pass 1WTC and honestly no one would really care because it's a building and a number and even the old WTC wouldn't have been the city's tallest forever.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 01:36 AM   #7223
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

I don't think most people even know 1WTC is 1776ft tall anyway. Nobody cares about a symbolic race to the ceiling.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 02:58 AM   #7224
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYStruct View Post
NYC DOB could invoke some obscure zoning regulation and do whatever they want. Without denying it outright they could also delay the permits forever by scrutinizing various issues that would seemingly have nothing to do with it.

For any building above 1776' that would "dethrone" WTC#1, I can pretty much guarantee you that the final say will come from the mayor's office (directly or indirectly), and I don't think a mayor would want to put up with the controversy of having the symbol of recovery & reconstruction after 9/11 being "outclassed" by a private developer just for gain. At least not for some time and while the wounds are just starting to heal.

This is the only reason why the spire was supposed to go "only" to 1775' in the first place. The developers decided not to go higher because they knew they would run into some resistance otherwise, and if the permits had been delayed by 3 or 6 months by a bureaucratic quagmire with DOB, the project would have been dead in the water before even starting.
This seems like such a non-issue to me. I mean whatever pretense the new WTC had of being patriotic has long subsided. Bjarke's building is nearly as tall (minus the spire). Also CPT is on the other side of town, a few miles away on the skyline. it's not as if the two buildings are next to each other in competition. From Long Island City or Astoria 432 Park looks as tall if not taller than 1 WTC and the Empire State still commands the skyline.

It would be one thing if CPT was going to be significantly taller, like if they were building an NYC Burj Khalifa, but that's a whole another ballgame, and quite frankly New York just isn't the kind of town for symbolic height restrictions. It built its reputation on reaching to the sky, hard to imagine they'd stop here, especially with China and the Middle East going higher and higher left and right.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 03:39 AM   #7225
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
I don't think most people even know 1WTC is 1776ft tall anyway. Nobody cares about a symbolic race to the ceiling.
The general population doesn't care. But you can bet some do. And if any building passes 1WTC they're going to make a lot of noise about it. Whether its warranted or not is debatable.

If Barnett chooses to go to 1775' the cynic in me says he's only doing so he can have the tallest residential tower. He's basically "daring" another developer to break the height of 1WTC and face the public wrath.

Barnett's not naive enough to think no one will ever try to pass his tower eventually. I think he would just be trying to hold the title long enough to sell off the units and have the prestige for as long as possible.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 04:03 AM   #7226
generalscarr
Registered User
 
generalscarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 425

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYStruct View Post
Ain't gonna happen.

1 WTC will likely remain the tallest building in NYC for a long time due to the symbolism and emotional charge. Roof level may be higher (such as 432 Park) but permits to go higher than 1776' would likely be denied.

This is most likely false. Symbolism and emotions are one thing but a billions of dollars worth of investment bringing the city significant benefits in taxes and jobs is something else.
Furthermore, if somebody tomorrow with air rights and funding wanted to build an as of right 1999 foot tower, they could anyway.
That Liebskind 1776' idea was OK as part of the master plan's story but it doesn't deserve to be defining the skyline for decades to come.
__________________

cnbnca, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
generalscarr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 04:06 AM   #7227
generalscarr
Registered User
 
generalscarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 425

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre000 View Post
The general population doesn't care. But you can bet some do. And if any building passes 1WTC they're going to make a lot of noise about it. Whether its warranted or not is debatable.



If Barnett chooses to go to 1775' the cynic in me says he's only doing so he can have the tallest residential tower. He's basically "daring" another developer to break the height of 1WTC and face the public wrath.



Barnett's not naive enough to think no one will ever try to pass his tower eventually. I think he would just be trying to hold the title long enough to sell off the units and have the prestige for as long as possible.

Nobody but a few architecture fans know, nobody cares.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
generalscarr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 04:23 AM   #7228
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

Quote:
Originally Posted by generalscarr View Post
Nobody but a few architecture fans know, nobody cares.
Only takes a few to make some noise. You don't think there are some journalists at the local NY papers who won't print a bunch of articles trying to stir things up?

I don't care. Neither do you. But someone does. Whether or not it's enough to stop a tower from going over 1WTC is certainly a stretch. But you can be sure there will be some drama about it.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 08:44 AM   #7229
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

Why would there be drama? Not in public opinion I don't think they would really care about the height of a building when they have other pressing matters going on in their city
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 06:48 PM   #7230
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

If a developer and came along and said they wanted to build a building that was tall enough to compete with the towers in Dubai or China and categorized it as "putting America back on top," almost no one would care about 1 WTC. I cannot imagine that anyone would be like "no 1776 is the max we can ever go in this city." That's just not the spirit of New York. Especially with formerly low-rise cities like London becoming impressive skylines, or even other American cities like Miami starting to become formidable in their own right.
__________________
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 07:24 PM   #7231
Otto Diesel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 86

Improvement!!!
__________________
Otto Diesel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 07:25 PM   #7232
Otto Diesel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 86

You can see how it is stepping back
__________________
Otto Diesel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2016, 08:35 AM   #7233
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

What is with the slow process of this and Steinway? Is it that difficult to build or something I don't understand, could someone in the know elaborate for me?
__________________

Tupac96, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2016, 07:12 PM   #7234
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by trustevil View Post
What is with the slow process of this and Steinway? Is it that difficult to build or something I don't understand, could someone in the know elaborate for me?
Doesn't seem that slow to me. 111 took forever to get started, but CPT seems to be rising about right. These are big, technically challenging endeavors on very, very tight sites in one of the world's most dense urban conditions. Not to mention there is another huge building going up across the street at 220, which to some degree has to make coordinating the different trades a slight challenge. Fortunately I believe both CPT and 220 CPS have the same general contractor, Bovis Lend Lease, so they can coordinate resources without stepping on each other (though the construction timelines of both sites are likely not related). But just because a job appears to be moving slow doesn't mean its held up. Most of these jobs are on very aggressive (borderline impossible) schedules set by ownership.

There really haven't been a whole lot of gigantic jobs like this in the US recently. The largest was probably City Center in Las Vegas and that job took about 5 years construction start to finish with six towers - one of which has since been demolished for poor construction.
__________________

cnbnca, Tupac96, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2016, 11:11 PM   #7235
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

I don't think there's been anything wrong with the pace on this one. 111 is a different matter though. While there hasn't been any progress on the tower, the Steinway building itself has seen plenty of work done in the meantime. Even so, there seems to be a lot of issues on 111 behind the scenes.

I'd love to read a book from someone like Michael Gross (740 Park, House of Outrageous Fortune) someday regarding "Billionaires Row". Would be fascinating to read about the inner workings of all these towers, how they came to be, etc.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2016, 12:17 AM   #7236
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

I understand that it's NY and it's packed I know the buildings aren't on hold but I guess they are difficult to spring up like some in China because not a whole lot of space and myb not a whole lot of workers? It is slow how many floors has cpt risen in the past month? 1wtc didn't take so long right? Even though imo it's a big let down in the design area with an atrocious "spire"
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2016, 02:41 AM   #7237
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

Quote:
Originally Posted by trustevil View Post
1wtc didn't take so long right? "
Sure. Only seven years and $4 billion spent. Not too shabby.
__________________

trustevil, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2016, 06:14 AM   #7238
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre000 View Post
Sure. Only seven years and $4 billion spent. Not too shabby.
Right so have to wait n see how long this one takes
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2016, 07:44 AM   #7239
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by trustevil View Post
Right so have to wait n see how long this one takes
WTC is a very different animal though. That was a highly contentious, volatile public process with all kinds of different stakeholders and interests. The politics are what held up the WTC not Tishman or SOM. 111 has no real politics to speak of. There might be some issue behind the scenes, perhaps the plans are held up in the DOB, or there is still some engineering to be worked out, none of which would be uncommon. But given the softening of the market I would think JDS would want that building out of the ground ASAP.

Should also point out that much of the construction in China is fast (they have armies of people to do some of this work), but of suspect quality. Not sure I'd want to be in some of those buildings in a major earthquake. Lots of cutting corners in other parts of the world by contractors that would be completely unacceptable, illegal even, in most of the western world.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Fabricio JF liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2016, 05:54 PM   #7240
NYStruct
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
There is no official law stating a building can't be higher than 1776'. It's more of a de facto agreement just like City Hall in Philadelphia, and that didn't last forever.

Gary might run into some resistance but if he did it secretly he could pass 1WTC and honestly no one would really care because it's a building and a number and even the old WTC wouldn't have been the city's tallest forever.
Agreed, there is no official law but you still have to put the height on the permits filing - and get the plans approved by DOB. And I don't think they would approve the permits for anything higher than 1776' right now because there would be some PR controversy about it and the mayor's office would probably want to steer clear of that.

I'm not saying there will never be a building higher than 1776' in NYC, but I don't think it will happen in the immediate future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by generalscarr View Post
This is most likely false. Symbolism and emotions are one thing but a billions of dollars worth of investment bringing the city significant benefits in taxes and jobs is something else.
Furthermore, if somebody tomorrow with air rights and funding wanted to build an as of right 1999 foot tower, they could anyway.
That Liebskind 1776' idea was OK as part of the master plan's story but it doesn't deserve to be defining the skyline for decades to come.
Your argument about symbolism vs. investment does not work because no developer would/could pose an ultimatum to the NYC Building Department in terms of "I want to build higher than 1776' in NYC or else I'm going to build it in New Jersey, take it or leave it": the city would tell them to take a hike, there are plenty of other developers in line... It's not just about air right and funding: you need a building permit approved by NYC Department of Building and in compliance with zoning regulations. If you have shelled out a fortune for the land, but need to wait an extra 1-3 years before your permits are approved and you can start construction, the delay will kill you financially. And on the other side of the equation, the mayor's office would take some heat for allowing it to happen (I can already see the headlines "mayor sells out WTC"...). So it's a no win situation.
Again, I'm not saying that it will never happen but just not that soon: right now a project higher than WTC#1 and its 1776' would face an extra layer of hurdles and complications to secure the permits - and be a PR nightmare for everybody. I don't think the developers would want to take that risk to jeopardize their project, especially when they can still get the title of "highest residential building" or "highest roof level" for marketing purpose.
Give it enough time and it will be different (except that the high luxury market is slowing down anyway) but personally I don't see any project higher than 1776' happening in Manhattan for at least the next 10 years.
__________________

Last edited by NYStruct; August 2nd, 2016 at 12:08 AM.
NYStruct 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 11:48 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