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 12th, 2012, 06:07 AM   #61
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blond Guy View Post
If they're going to demolish these pre-war beauties, than it better be one hell of a tower.
I'd prefer one with a stone facade, a bit like the future 99 church street/30 park place.


Here's a crazy idea: a 300 meter tall version of the Singer building!
That's a fantastic idea! Although the two building being demolished are pre-war, they aren't great. Singer is one of my favorite designs though, and it was a massive mistake to remove a monumental building like Singer, especially since it was once the world's tallest, and then replace it with a black box. I would rather see it in Lower Manhattan though...
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 12th, 2012, 02:59 PM   #62
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

While this is probably not the design, it was included in the presentation for Midtown's rezoning.

__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 03:20 PM   #63
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Looks like a taller version of Tower Verre
__________________
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/

Zaz965 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 03:33 PM   #64
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

I'd prefer the classier look that close to the East River
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 05:08 PM   #65
msquaredb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 354

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
Looks like a taller version of Tower Verre
You like it?! It seems to go against your well established flat roof aesthetic.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
msquaredb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 05:25 PM   #66
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I like flat roof buildings the most, but that doesn't mean I dislike all other buildings. I think Tower Verre, and this early design of this tower look both good
__________________
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/

Zaz965 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 07:03 PM   #67
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

http://observer.com/2012/07/how-abou...east-rezoning/


How About Another Empire State Building or Two? City Outlines Mega Midtown East Rezoning

By Matt Chaban


It’s the moment developers, planning geeks, and perhaps the entire city without knowing it, has been waiting for all year: the unveiling of the city’s plans, first hinted at in the mayor’s State of the City address, to remake the face of Midtown Manhattan.

It is big. No, really big. Bigger than almost anything the city has ever seen. Empire State Building big. While that will not be the case for every tower that is eventually built through the program, it could be for at least a few.
The parameters, unveiled at Community Board 5 last night, are close to what had been previously hinted at, an area stretching from 39th Street up to 57th Street, emanating out from Grand Central. Fifth Avenue has been eliminated from the original study area, as has the northern reaches of Third and Lexington avenues, which were considered too residential. Still, the plan affects all or part of 74 blocks in the heart of the city.

Far fewer of them will be developed because a provision in the plan limits development sites to only those that stretch the length of an entire avenue blockfront, and they must sit on a site that covers at least 25,000 square feet, or a little more than half an acre. Still, that is already the case for many Midtown towers, including landmarks like the Seagram and Lipstick buildings, for example. The bigger challenge would be emptying old towers of tenants so new buildings can be built.

Just how big? As suggested at another public meeting last month, the focus of the rezoning is on the blocks surrounding Grand Central Terminal as well as the length of Park Avenue to 57th Street. Surrounding avenues will see their density bumped up slightly, from a floor area ratio of 15 to 18 (excuse the technical numbers for a moment). Park Avenue and the Grand Central subdistrict, which will expand one block north to 49th Street and two blocks south to 39th Street, between Madison and Lexington Avenues, will have an FAR of 21.6. A new Grand Central core district will be created for the blocks immediately around Grand Central with an FAR of 24. (See: map.)

To put that all in perspective, the massive Pan Am/MetLife tower that currently looms over Grand Central has an FAR of 18. City Planning pointed to the old Bear Stearns headquarters around the corner, at 383 Madison Avenue, as having an FAR of 21.6. One Bryant Park, just down 42nd Street, hits 24 FAR, and is one of the biggest buildings in the city. Frank Ruchala, the project manager for the rezoning from the Department of City Planning, mapped out scenarios with towers rising between 575 feet and 700 feet on Park Avenue and between 700 and 800 feet around Grand Central, approaching the height of 30 Rockefeller Center.

“We think that’s what’s appropriate to build the kinds of building we need,” Mr. Ruchala said. After all, this plan is predicated on preparing the Central Business District for a major modernization over the coming decades.

But the fun does not end there. All these big new buildings can be built as of right, meaning no cumbersome public reviews. But should a developer wish to aim high, really high, they can go for an additional FAR bonus, a jump to 24 along Park and around Grand Central, while the Grand Central core subdistrict, the eleven small blocks around the train station, jumps up to a whopping 30 FAR, on par with the skyline defining Empire State Building (FAR of 33, the only thing in town that comes close). As if to drive this point home, City Planning’s presentation showed a spindly tower, which looked not unlike the MoMA tower it once rejected, piercing the skyline above Grand Central.

To achieve this, a developer must submit to a special permit, requiring the standard (and often torturous) public reviews. There would be a considerable emphasis on quality design, both at the top of the building, which would almost certainly take a prominent place on the skyline, as well as at the base, where “a significant public space” would be required, as Edith Hsu-Chen, director of the Department of City Planning’s Manhattan office, put it.

Mr. Ruchala framed it in terms of global competitiveness. “If you look around the world, you see iconic building being built in every major city,” he said. “We invented that.” He then showed a slide of the Chrysler Building, Seagram Building and Lever House.

These greater heights do not come for free, however. For a boost ranging from 25 to 100 percent of the current zoning, developers would have to buy their air rights either from local landmarks or a city-sponsored Development Investment Bonus. The numbers are still far from final on this, but the project would hope to generate many millions of dollars to fund improvements to the streets and subways.

The city has only identified two projects so far, the most critical of which seems to be better routes through the Grand Central subway stations for the Lexington Ave and No. 7 trains, though attention is also being paid to stops along 53rd Street. “The 4/5/6 is at 116 percent capacity,” Raju Mann, chair of the board’s transportation committee, pointed out warily. “We need to think seriously about solving this problem, and make sure there are sufficient resources to do so.”

The other big public works project—of which there could be more, the city is still soliciting ideas—is the already controversial closure of Vanderbilt Avenue. A drawing of the plan reveals that the crosstown traffic lanes will remain open, essentially creating plazas out in front of the new and old buildings, similar to Times Square but without the traffic of 7th Avenue rushing by. Access to Grand Central would still be provided by the block between 43rd and 44th streets (just missing the slightly incensed Yale Club, two of whose members spoke at the hearing).

As for those old buildings not quite big enough to cash in on all the new air rights being thrown around, if they were built before the 1961 zoning code, and thus have more FAR than current zoning might allow, developers will be allowed to tear down their buildings and build to the old densities, a move seen as helping replace many outdated buildings—nearly 80 percent in the area are older than 50 years, according to the city.

While supportive of the idea, the community board was taken aback by many of the proposals. “The amount of density here is incredible, and I applaud the city for being ambitious” Mr. Mann said. “But I don’t think many of the issues have been thought through that will keep Midtown from being overwhelmed.”

One of the biggest issues was the decision to allow bigger buildings if their designs were deemed to be of sufficient quality. There was widespread concern about who would determine that—the City Planning Commission and the City Council—and why every building in the district should not be held to the same standard if Midtown was so important to begin with, as the city officials kept insisting. “Thirty FAR scares the hell out of me,” board member Miele Rockefeller said. Member Matthew Scheid countered that “I’m fine with 30 FAR, but I don’t understand why it’s not 40 FAR or 25 FAR. You haven’t explained the rationale for the numbers.”

As with a previous meeting, historic preservation was a hot topic, with many board members concerned that there would not be enough time for the Landmarks Preservation Commission to survey and protect buildings of historical or cultural significance. Especially now, given the economic incentive developers would have to tear down their buildings, since the rezoning has been outlined, the task would be even harder. “I think there’s wide recognition that this is a special area, and there are special buildings in this area,” Edward Klimerman said.

There were also widespread concerns about whether the sale of development rights would be sufficient to cover the costs of the needed improvements. “The city paid for the improvements to Times Square,” land-use vice-chair Giuseppe Scalia pointed out. “Why are developers being given millions of square feet to do it here?”

But the biggest issue was not so much policy as politics. The city is putting what it calls a sunrise provision into the plan, which means that no buildings can be built under the new zoning until five years from now, in the summer of 2017. This is meant as a protection for the city’s considerable investment in Hudson Yards—Mr. Ruchala called that “our top priority”—but that left many on the board wondering why this rezoning could not simply wait five years. Their explanation, at times implicit, occasionally explicit, was that the administration, and its partners in Big Real Estate did not feel it could wait. Ms. Hsu-Chen said simply that developers needed time to plan for their projects.

“There was this idea that came out in the media that we were looking to destroy half of Midtown,” Mr. Ruchala said. “We’re not looking to do that, and we don’t think that’s possible. We’re looking to create some development for the future.”
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 08:05 PM   #68
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Thank you for the informative posts. I'm loving the sound of this project!
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 08:19 PM   #69
Kiboko
hubba hubba
 
Kiboko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,462
Likes (Received): 327

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
Nice, but it should be much taller. Manhattan can use a new icon of the 21st century, an icon which sets the new standards for height.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Kiboko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 08:26 PM   #70
Uaarkson
Sheet Metal Sketcher
 
Uaarkson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: East Side Flint
Posts: 2,527
Likes (Received): 1028

Quote:
Originally Posted by HK999 View Post
As Uaarkson said, you can't compare those two projects. 1WTC is handled by idiots and cheap bastards aka the PA and Durst Org. Take a look at 432 Park Ave where CIM, a privite developer, handles things pretty quickly.
Oxymoron. We're talking about real estate developers, here.

The problem with the WTC is that it's a marriage between public and private organizations and involves too many developers. But that's just how it is. These new mega sites up and down Park Avenue will see their share of development hell too, I'm sure.

On another note, it's slightly infuriating to see their little skyline mockup featuring what is basically the outline of Tower Verre. I hope Amanda Burden feels like the colossal idiot she is.
__________________
Manhattan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1MySJoFl8&hd=1 (HD)

Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by Uaarkson; July 12th, 2012 at 08:31 PM.
Uaarkson está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 08:34 PM   #71
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 Kiboko View Post
Nice, but it should be much taller. Manhattan can use a new icon of the 21st century, an icon which sets the new standards for height.
I 1000% agree with you
__________________
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/

Zaz965 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 08:42 PM   #72
Guy Noir
Registered User
 
Guy Noir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
Looks Shardish.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Guy Noir no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 08:47 PM   #73
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
http://observer.com/2012/07/how-abou...east-rezoning/


How About Another Empire State Building or Two? City Outlines Mega Midtown East Rezoning

By Matt Chaban



...It is big. No, really big. Bigger than almost anything the city has ever seen. Empire State Building big... Still, the plan affects all or part of 74 blocks in the heart of the city.
This really captures what I love most about NY. The ambition, foresight, and sheer scale of this plan are just awesome.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 10:34 PM   #74
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 15

Grand Central Tower!!!

+600m
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2012, 10:46 PM   #75
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Hahaha a little ambitious. I'd say 500m tops, but that's still great.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2012, 12:25 AM   #76
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

i expect 350m-400m
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2012, 12:32 AM   #77
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
i expect 350m-400m
I agree.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2012, 03:29 AM   #78
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Hoping for a one-of-a-kind, never before seen design. Fingers crossed!
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2012, 01:57 PM   #79
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

too many unique designs make new york look like disney land, i hope for something simple and elegant. maybe modern to show a little bit of contrast between itself and the classic structures like chrysler
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2012, 02:01 PM   #80
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Agreed. Simple and elegant is the best bet for NYC. Fancy shapes would look out of place.

As to the height, I think it will be 450 - 500 meters
__________________
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/

Zaz965 liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
1 vanderbilt, 51 e.42nd st., midtown, new york, 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 08:10 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