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 March 18th, 2017, 02:59 AM   #7581
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 627
Likes (Received): 520

This should have been built five or six blocks south.
__________________

ScraperDude, Crowns n' Spires liked this post
Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 19th, 2017, 08:07 PM   #7582
ocelongine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Does Extell get the construction loan? It requires huge money and many suspect it couldnt be completed.
ocelongine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 01:16 AM   #7583
towerpower123
Let's Revive our Cities
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howell/Newark, NJ
Posts: 2,242
Likes (Received): 4181

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley1066 View Post
This should have been built five or six blocks south.
It is only here because of the Central Park views. A massive new Extell tower is planned for 1710 Broadway, about 4 blocks south along Broadway.
__________________
If I don't say otherwise, all of my images are on my blog,
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot.com/?view=sidebar

186 Newark, NJ Development projects MAPPED
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1874870
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot....l?view=sidebar

See my DeviantArt account at http://towerpower123.deviantart.com/
towerpower123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 02:31 AM   #7584
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 627
Likes (Received): 520

Quote:
Originally Posted by towerpower123 View Post
It is only here because of the Central Park views. A massive new Extell tower is planned for 1710 Broadway, about 4 blocks south along Broadway.
Views that would be virtually identical 5 or 6 blocks south.
Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 03:01 AM   #7585
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,518
Likes (Received): 22527

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley1066 View Post
Views that would be virtually identical 5 or 6 blocks south.
not for the bottom 2/3s of the tower.
Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 05:29 AM   #7586
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

Then don't build the top 1/3. Build only as high as necessary to get some views.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 05:40 AM   #7587
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,341
Likes (Received): 3586

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
Then don't build the top 1/3. Build only as high as necessary to get some views.

"Hey Extell, I think your tower is too tall."

"How do you mean?"

"It's a little too close to the Park."

"Oh shit, you're right. I hadn't even realized, it's not very contextual, is it?"

"That's what I'm saying. You mind sacrificing a couple hundred million dollars by building less than you're legally entitled to?"

"You got it, dawg. Good catch."
__________________
MarshallKnight está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 06:14 AM   #7588
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

The point is that they SHOULDN'T be legally entitled.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 01:57 PM   #7589
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
The point is that they SHOULDN'T be legally entitled.
Then there's no point of having a zoning ordinance...just have everything spot-zoned or approved through review ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
__________________

lipa85 liked this post
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 02:32 PM   #7590
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Easy solution: just don't build the bottom 2/3 of the tower. Only build the top 1/3 and move it to a different location. Problem solved.
__________________

Crowns n' Spires liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 04:23 PM   #7591
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
Then there's no point of having a zoning ordinance...just have everything spot-zoned or approved through review ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, don't have the blocks around Central Park zoned for buildings that tall. That's the zoning ordnance.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 05:31 PM   #7592
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
No, don't have the blocks around Central Park zoned for buildings that tall. That's the zoning ordnance.
The oridinance specifies that there is some desireable amount of development (hence, FAR), with the tacit acknowledgement that the detrimental effects of said developments would reside in the massing of these projects not the height.

Remove FAR - or convolute it with statutory height limits - and other regulatory schemes (e.g. Air Rights) become less attractive or simply no longer work.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Saying the zoning should be amended because "tall buildings near the park offends sensibilities" is akin to property owners saying a multi-family project doesn't "suit the characteristics of a neighborhood."

What it comes down to is: "I don't like it, so it shouldn't happen." That is not really how zoning ordinances are meant to function, I think...

There's a reason land use law sets some rational tests for examining the intent of zoning decisions.
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 10:02 PM   #7593
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

Except that that exact argument has been upheld before.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 10:29 PM   #7594
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,341
Likes (Received): 3586

Sorry, I didn't mean to be a dick with my response; whether to re-zone the area is obviously a legitimate debate, separate from asking a developer to undermine its own interests.

My big question is, what public harm would a re-zoning be designed to rectify? The shadows on Central Park? The views of the park from other high end condo and office buildings to the South? Preserving the classic look and feel of the Park environs?

You can make arguments for all of those. And others will argue that the tax and job-creation benefits to the city far outweigh those concerns. Given the history of development in NYC (and America more broadly) my instinct is that the latter will prevail, but if it's something you care passionately about, you should take it up with your local representatives or join a neighborhood coalition to have your voice heard.

Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by the aesthetics. What does bother me is the notion that these glorified safety deposit boxes for overseas investors are distorting an already insanely competitive real estate market (the same is happening in LA, San Francisco, Vancouver, and many other North American and European cities). If I were concentrating my energies on affecting regulatory change, that's where it'd be.

But that's just me.
__________________
MarshallKnight está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2017, 10:45 PM   #7595
germantower
i ♥ NY
 
germantower's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,448
Likes (Received): 1154

The most expensive appartments are at 120m USD in NYC, nothing to worry yet. Worry when they are sold for 250 or 500m USD: :P
__________________
more SHoP less BIG

MarshallKnight liked this post
germantower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 04:40 AM   #7596
UrbanImpact
Registered User
 
UrbanImpact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Posts: 664
Likes (Received): 1535

57th street and near Central Park have always been expensive and that's where the pricey real estate should be located. If you argued a former middle class area then that would make sense.
__________________
Visit My Italy pictures thread (Florence, Rome, Vatican City, Tuscany, Venice, Milan, & Lake Como)!
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1742049
UrbanImpact no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 11:37 AM   #7597
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
Except that that exact argument has been upheld before.
Upheld in which contexts...? That's the factor, here.
Try it out and prepare to see a circus over per say takings.

The question isn't whether the city has the regulatory authority to restrict height (obviously it does), the question is whether it bears any rational relationship to the implicit goals of the zoning ordinance, which undoubtedly seeks to limit 1) total floor area developed in a given area and 2) the massing of developments as said area is fully built-out.

My point about objecting to multi-family apartments is that it's the same in spirit, not necessarily in kind.

The city would need a better argument than shadows - or aesthetics - to get away with limiting the potential use of those properties since it bears no relationship to what the city has planned for in that area in the past. Else, they'd be admitting there was no actual rational basis for why the city enacted zoning that permitted those structures, to begin with - and thus, none for why they'd suddenly need to change it; particularly, if the takings were severe enough.

For this reason, landmarking could be a good solution, but that just gets us back to square one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
...whether to re-zone the area is obviously a legitimate debate, separate from asking a developer to undermine its own interests.

My big question is, what public harm would a re-zoning be designed to rectify? The shadows on Central Park? The views of the park from other high end condo and office buildings to the South? Preserving the classic look and feel of the Park environs?
It's also worth asking what's the rational nexus between a height limit and any of those goals - given that the city has focused on the mass/envelope of a building as the means to achieve those ends?
__________________
MCRP '16

MarshallKnight, streetscapeer liked this post
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 02:25 PM   #7598
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

The shadows and feel of the park would qualify-historic preservation and quality of life.
__________________

Riley1066 liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2017, 06:09 AM   #7599
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,893
Likes (Received): 25055

From SSP

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
MARCH 21, 2017


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.





58th and 57th facades again:






__________________
streetscapeer está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2017, 08:16 AM   #7600
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 708
Likes (Received): 1878



Video:

https://scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram...17804800_n.mp4


https://www.instagram.com/kkinthegrid/
__________________

streetscapeer, Infesus, goodybear liked this post

Last edited by McSky; March 22nd, 2017 at 04:07 PM.
McSky 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 07:31 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