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 August 1st, 2016, 10:52 PM   #7241
nyc15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 190
Likes (Received): 159

No building in Manhattan exceeding the height of 1776ft��?? I mean in the next decade!!!!!!!
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by nyc15; August 2nd, 2016 at 12:51 AM.
nyc15 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 2nd, 2016, 02:35 AM   #7242
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

Extell looks to have brought in Chinese equity partner at Central Park Tower
http://therealdeal.com/2016/08/01/ex...al-park-tower/



Quote:
Gary Barnett’s Extell Development appears to have scored a capital partner for one if its most ambitious projects yet, the Central Park Tower at 217 West 57th Street.
New documents filed with the New York Attorney General’s office indicate that the firm’s new partner on the Billionaires’ Row luxury condominium may be SMI USA, the U.S. subsidiary of Shanghai Municipal Investment, the largest state-owned enterprise in Shanghai.
Neither SMI nor Extell would immediately confirm the partnership, but several documents hint at SMI’s involvement.
For instance, Extell refiled its plans for the project with the AG’s office under a new corporate entity, after pulling its original offering plan last year. The new entity, SMITELL LLC, may be a combination of the two firms’ names. Extell TRData LogoTINY transferred title to the site to that new entity in June.
And in December, another LLC was registered under the name SMI Central Park Tower, LLC, according to public records from the state of Delaware.
The tower is slated to rise 1,550 feet and cost $2.98 billion, according to EB-5 investor documents from June.
...

The new offering plan filed by the company calls for 179 units but does not specify prices, so it’s possible those numbers could have been amended since.
__________________
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 02:58 AM   #7243
Zaz965
Temer Out!
 
Zaz965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: CCCP
Posts: 2,982
Likes (Received): 26001

gorgeous render
__________________

djole13, ChuckScraperMiami#1, Harryx5 liked this post
Zaz965 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 06:45 AM   #7244
generalscarr
Registered User
 
generalscarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 425

NEW YORK | Central Park Tower | 472m | 1550ft | 95 fl | U/C

[/QUOTE]


Wow, we can say ASGG certainly underdid themselves with this super generic random boxy massing.
I hope it'll turn out better than the rendering but it just reminds me of a chinese office tower. Not very New York and def not the crown jewel of CP like it wants to be (assuming that it does based on it's name)
Looking at the glorious cluster**** that is the east and west facade of One57, I'm getting scared.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by generalscarr; August 2nd, 2016 at 06:52 AM.
generalscarr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 07:02 AM   #7245
generalscarr
Registered User
 
generalscarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 425

NEW YORK | Central Park Tower | 472m | 1550ft | 95 fl | U/C

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.[/QUOTE]


Google 'as of right development'

Also even if it's not as of right, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars benefiting the city are more valuable than Daniel Liebskind's random idea from a deacade ago.

With that said, there prob won't be a taller one in this cycle and therefore not for another few years.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by generalscarr; August 2nd, 2016 at 07:13 AM.
generalscarr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 08:05 AM   #7246
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

How many times has this argument been brought up? That 1776 height figure is just a gentlemans agreement nothing more. The mayor's office won't come under fire for another building breaking that height... Besides it's 1792' not 1776 so almost 20 more ft to break anyway.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 11:14 AM   #7247
nyc15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 190
Likes (Received): 159

No building in Manhattan exceeding the height of 1776ft��?? I mean in the next decade!!!!!!!
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
nyc15 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 06:49 PM   #7248
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4623

You guys need to chill about this, like holy hell.
__________________
#Save2WTC
weidncol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 07:17 PM   #7249
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by weidncol View Post
You guys need to chill about this, like holy hell.
Seriously, recent documents show this building could be as high as 1,570 feet (480 meters) to the roof. We should be more excited than anything because that's just massive.
__________________
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 07:28 PM   #7250
DUBAI10000
Registered User
 
DUBAI10000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Boston
Posts: 790
Likes (Received): 436

I think that this tower will not have a spire built because the only reason for adding a spire is to make this building the tallest in America, they want that record for marketing reasons however they aren't dating to build taller than the One World Trade Center because of public humility.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
DUBAI10000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 08:06 PM   #7251
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,621
Likes (Received): 28174

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Seriously, recent documents show this building could be as high as 1,570 feet (480 meters) to the roof. We should be more excited than anything because that's just massive.
I agree. This is a great height. Megatalls are not necessarily better towers/designs.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2016, 08:16 PM   #7252
NYStruct
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by generalscarr View Post
Google 'as of right development'

Also even if it's not as of right, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars benefiting the city are more valuable than Daniel Liebskind's random idea from a deacade ago.

With that said, there prob won't be a taller one in this cycle and therefore not for another few years.
As of right means your project is in compliance with zoning regulations and does not need a special examination/appeal by the City Planning Commission. That being said you still need a Building Permit to be approved which might be a tall order, even more so for tall buildings due to safety concerns. The delivery of that building permit could be delayed due to political pressure.

Let's agree to disagree and see what the future will bring - I would love to see more supertalls higher than WTC#1 in NYC but I honestly don't think it's in the cards, at least not this decade or the next one.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
NYStruct no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 04:14 AM   #7253
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYStruct View Post
As of right means your project is in compliance with zoning regulations and does not need a special examination/appeal by the City Planning Commission. That being said you still need a Building Permit to be approved which might be a tall order, even more so for tall buildings due to safety concerns. The delivery of that building permit could be delayed due to political pressure.

Let's agree to disagree and see what the future will bring - I would love to see more supertalls higher than WTC#1 in NYC but I honestly don't think it's in the cards, at least not this decade or the next one.
Its hard to say what the next decade will hold. I mean just 7 years ago when 15 CPW opened no one could've predicted that would be the catalyst to create Billionaires Row in the first place, so anything can happen. That being said its pretty much impossible (or highly improbable) at this point for anything to happen between now and 2020 unless someone has something in the works that we don't know about that is already pretty far along in design.

Again the 1776 argument is to me a moot point. New York City is just not going to stop there period. By the time Billionaire's Row is fully built out we will be nearly 20 years removed from 9/11 and kids in college won't even have been born. It's an interesting piece of trivia that 1 WTC is 1776', a kind of nice "oh by the way," but there is just no way this city will truncate itself over the long term. If the market were more agreeable we'd probably see more supertalls proposed (and if not NYC someone somewhere in this country whether its Chicago or Miami will go taller). This is the city that tore down Penn Station, Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, allowed the Pan Am Building and recently impacted the powers of the LPC. Almost nothing is truly sacred in New York (certainly nothing as trivial as a building height restriction based on an event that is receding further and further into the past) given enough time or willpower.
__________________

cnbnca, Amecurty, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 02:40 PM   #7254
Fabricio JF
ad scientia
 
Fabricio JF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vitória, Espírito Santo
Posts: 7,528
Likes (Received): 6667

Midtown was for many decades the first supertall and the tallest building in the city. I see no need of emotional appeal to break the barrier of 1WTC. It can be broken and the city has story to tell, as the dispute between the entrepreneurs of the Chrysler Building and 40 Wall Street.

Chicago is also a city that in the future can foster the construction of the tallest buildings in NYC. Even may have the first megatall in US, the Gateway Tower in place of the Chicago Spire. Recalling that in Chicago is mainly the business history of seeking a new architecture after the great fire of the nineteenth century, which inspired the city to have the impressive skyline it has today.

And see NYC with all these supertalls releases is fueling again the spark that led the city to build the tallest building in the country, almost immediately following your inauguration of the twin towers. There may even be pessimistic about the approval of the Gateway Tower, but no doubt the situation it is better than large buildings in the city that have not been approved in the past, among them, the other megatall, Chicago World Trade Center in the 80's.

Houston is another city that could have this potential for new real estate developments in the highest, but watching the angloesphere in the world today, the cards are in NYC and Chicago. Outside the United States, London, Toronto, Calgary and Gold Coast.
__________________
EN << Next | Chicago
New York | 2 skylines in 20 years >> EN Fixed!
EN << Miami | Brickell and Downtown | Manhattanization
Casa Atlântica | Single project of Zaha Hadid to South America in Rio >> BP

Zaz965, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Fabricio JF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 04:45 PM   #7255
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1284

Quote:
Originally Posted by generalscarr View Post
Wow, we can say ASGG certainly underdid themselves with this super generic random boxy massing.
I hope it'll turn out better than the rendering but it just reminds me of a chinese office tower. Not very New York and def not the crown jewel of CP like it wants to be (assuming that it does based on it's name)
Looking at the glorious cluster**** that is the east and west facade of One57, I'm getting scared.
And I am scared from the building behind central park tower (220 central park south), you know it reminds me of Dubai (not very New York), with its cheap materials and windows that some people claim to represents the evolution of architecture, should I laugh, or should I cry?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 06:11 PM   #7256
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
And I am scared from the building behind central park tower (220 central park south), you know it reminds me of Dubai (not very New York), with its cheap materials and windows that some people claim to represents the evolution of architecture, should I laugh, or should I cry?
Since when was Alabama limestone a cheap material? You make it sound like its a tower in Las Vegas clad in EIFS.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 06:19 PM   #7257
NYStruct
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post
Its hard to say what the next decade will hold. I mean just 7 years ago when 15 CPW opened no one could've predicted that would be the catalyst to create Billionaires Row in the first place, so anything can happen. That being said its pretty much impossible (or highly improbable) at this point for anything to happen between now and 2020 unless someone has something in the works that we don't know about that is already pretty far along in design.

Again the 1776 argument is to me a moot point. New York City is just not going to stop there period. By the time Billionaire's Row is fully built out we will be nearly 20 years removed from 9/11 and kids in college won't even have been born. It's an interesting piece of trivia that 1 WTC is 1776', a kind of nice "oh by the way," but there is just no way this city will truncate itself over the long term. If the market were more agreeable we'd probably see more supertalls proposed (and if not NYC someone somewhere in this country whether its Chicago or Miami will go taller). This is the city that tore down Penn Station, Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, allowed the Pan Am Building and recently impacted the powers of the LPC. Almost nothing is truly sacred in New York (certainly nothing as trivial as a building height restriction based on an event that is receding further and further into the past) given enough time or willpower.
Fair enough - my bet would be no building above WTC#1 (1776') until at least 2030. Heck, I might even go for 2040 (and I'm talking about approved development/plans, not actual construction).

Even if you consider breaking the symbolic/emotional charge of having WTC#1 as the tallest building in NYC as a moot point (which I am sure some people would disagree with), you have to keep in mind that there is very little incentive to have a building over 1500' in NYC where there is already a strong competition on the market of skyscrapers. Past that height the costs increase drastically due to the level of technicality required for the foundations, lateral load resisting system, elevators, HVAC and mechanical issues, fire escape evacuation plan, etc. There are also the issues with the comfort level due to the acceleration/deflection at the top of the building under wind loading, which often requires a tuned mass damper. The cost of construction itself becomes almost prohibitive due to the complications of the logistics (construction hoist and cranes)...

The megatalls are mostly vanity projects, and require developer with a pocket deep enough to match their ego (and cheap labor). While they are engineering feats, they are an aberration from the economic standpoint (even in Jeddah or Dubai, and much more so in NYC).
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by NYStruct; August 3rd, 2016 at 06:25 PM.
NYStruct no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 06:24 PM   #7258
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,518
Likes (Received): 22536

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
And I am scared from the building behind central park tower (220 central park south), you know it reminds me of Dubai (not very New York), with its cheap materials and windows that some people claim to represents the evolution of architecture, should I laugh, or should I cry?
maybe repent? Its a good fit for central park. Much Better than the ultra-tall glass monolith rising behind.

Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 06:54 PM   #7259
Nyghtscape
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYStruct View Post
Fair enough - my bet would be no building above WTC#1 (1776') until at least 2030. Heck, I might even go for 2040 (and I'm talking about approved development/plans, not actual construction).

Even if you consider breaking the symbolic/emotional charge of having WTC#1 as the tallest building in NYC as a moot point (which I am sure some people would disagree with), you have to keep in mind that there is very little incentive to have a building over 1500' in NYC where there is already a strong competition on the market of skyscrapers. Past that height the costs increase drastically due to the level of technicality required for the foundations, lateral load resisting system, elevators, HVAC and mechanical issues, fire escape evacuation plan, etc. There are also the issues with the comfort level due to the acceleration/deflection at the top of the building under wind loading, which often requires a tuned mass damper. The cost of construction itself becomes almost prohibitive due to the complications of the logistics (construction hoist and cranes)...

The megatalls are mostly vanity projects, and require developer with a pocket deep enough to match their ego (and cheap labor). While they are engineering feats, they are an aberration from the economic standpoint (even in Jeddah or Dubai, and much more so in NYC).
Robert AM Stern invited William Baker, the structural engineer on Burj Khalifa for a symposium at Yale a few years back, and in that he mentioned that these supertalls almost have to be residential (or residential-ish like a hotel). Otherwise the demands of vertical circulation in an office building alone, not to mention unusably small floorplates make it next to impossible for commercial use (or at least the kind of tenant that would justify the costs). The elevator core in a commercial building might be as large as the entire floorplate on some upper floors of 111 W 57th for example.

Obviously no one will spend that kind of money on just a hotel (unless its Vegas or Macau) so these things basically pay for themselves with apartment sales, and those days in New York are basically over.

Also my point was that, if this town could tear down Yankee Stadium, a place almost sacrosanct to many New Yorkers, I don't hold out much hope for 1 WTC being the tallest building in perpetuity.
__________________
Nyghtscape no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2016, 08:45 PM   #7260
NYStruct
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghtscape View Post
Robert AM Stern invited William Baker, the structural engineer on Burj Khalifa for a symposium at Yale a few years back, and in that he mentioned that these supertalls almost have to be residential (or residential-ish like a hotel). Otherwise the demands of vertical circulation in an office building alone, not to mention unusably small floorplates make it next to impossible for commercial use (or at least the kind of tenant that would justify the costs). The elevator core in a commercial building might be as large as the entire floorplate on some upper floors of 111 W 57th for example.

Obviously no one will spend that kind of money on just a hotel (unless its Vegas or Macau) so these things basically pay for themselves with apartment sales, and those days in New York are basically over.

Also my point was that, if this town could tear down Yankee Stadium, a place almost sacrosanct to many New Yorkers, I don't hold out much hope for 1 WTC being the tallest building in perpetuity.
I agree with you - except that in some ways WTC#1 is a tribute to the victims of 9/11 and to the american spirit of endurance and resiliency. The old Penn Station or the Yankee Stadium were never that.
__________________

spectre000, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
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 06:05 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