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 15th, 2012, 02:14 AM   #101
OnePointWest
Riemanns Hypothesis
 
OnePointWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New York,New York
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 1128

5,000 Ft. Woot Woot
OnePointWest no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 15th, 2012, 04:29 AM   #102
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1864

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11 View Post
1200-1500 ft is a more realistic estimate
This would be my guess too
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 04:31 AM   #103
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

I'm thinking about a 1,400 foot roof at most, but, depending on the design, if a spire or antenna was installed, it could have a pinnacle height of ~1,700 feet.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 04:34 AM   #104
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

my guess is 1500 ft roof height
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2012, 11:10 PM   #105
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5338

If I expect too much of te height, it might be dissapointing. So I'm happy with 1200f.
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2012, 06:15 AM   #106
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Yeah I'm thinking 1200 as well.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2012, 12:13 PM   #107
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3547

1200 would be very dissapointing in my opinion. It should be at least 1400
__________________
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 July 16th, 2012, 01:58 PM   #108
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 69,165
Likes (Received): 29162

I'm sure that if you pay for it, they'll do it.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2012, 03:23 PM   #109
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3547

I'll donate 40 euro cents if it'll help
__________________
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 July 17th, 2012, 04:12 AM   #110
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1864

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsc View Post
Yeah I'm thinking 1200 as well.
Well the original article made it sound like they were aiming for the tallest in the city but who knows.

I really hope it's more than 1200 feet
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 12:37 AM   #111
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53484

NY Post

Quote:
Grand Central's Grand Plan



Posted: 12:50 AM, July 17, 2012

Up-zoning the district near Grand Central Terminal is vital to the city’s future, a way to ensure that Manhattan’s most desirable commercial zone can compete in the future with global capitals like London and Shanghai.

But unless you’re a property owner or a land-use lawyer, the topic can put you to sleep faster than anything they sell at Duane Reade. That’s where Realty Check comes in.

Let’s explain in English what the Department of City Planning (DCP) has in mind — and clear up misconceptions in the press over the past week. Stay with us, because after the baby steps, it gets more interesting:

1. What is it? If approved by the City Council, the plan would allow developers to build larger buildings in certain parts of Midtown — like between 39th and 57th streets and between Second and Fifth avenues.

2. Why is it necessary? Current zoning permits new structures to have a floor-area ratio (FAR) of only 15 — which is smaller than many of the buildings that already exist because the area was down-zoned in 1961, after they were constructed. The city urgently needs modern new office towers, but nobody’s going to put up such small ones that are now allowed in Midtown’s precious heart.

image hosted on flickr

383 Madison which replaced a blocked 72 story tower proposal.

3. Whoa! — 383 Madison Ave., which opened in 2000, doesn’t look like one of those smaller buildings. In fact, the former Bear Stearns headquarters, now part of JPMorgan Chase, was indeed built to up-zoned specifications in the late 1990s-2000.

In techno-speak, it has a 21.6 density rating, or FAR. How was that possible with a limit of 15? “An arduous process,” says DCP East Midtown project manager Frank Ruchala. It included going through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), buying air rights and negotiating with the MTA and the city — an exception to 1961 down-zoning permitted under a 1992 Grand Central Subdistrict, which was supposed to liberate properties from the 15 FAR rule but almost never did. The new zoning is supposed to make things less “arduous.”


4. All right, how much bigger could new buildings be under the new proposal? From slightly larger (18 FAR) to much larger (30 FAR), depending on where in the district they are.

5. But I’ve seen maps showing one big district with no FAR subdivisions. They were maps of the DCP’s “study area.” In fact, the district to be up-zoned is chopped into distinct sub-zones. And it’s been shrunk from the boundaries shown in the Wall Street Journal last week. Rezoning on Third and Lexington avenues would apply only as far north as 54th Street, not 57th Street, and no longer east to Fifth Avenue but to Madison.

It’s even more complicated: there’s one set of rules for developers who proceed “as of right” — which isn’t as simple as it sounds either — and those who seek a “special permit” to erect even larger buildings than those allowed as of right.

6. OK, how big? Under the “as of right” framework, the up-zoning would be to a 24 FAR in the roughly square area bounded by 42nd and 46th streets and Lexington and Madison avenues; and 18 or 21.6 FAR in corridors running north and south of and parallel to the square.


http://www.newyorkyimby.com/2012/07/...-plan-for.html

Contrary to what’s been published, there are no height limits in the area either in existing zoning or in the rezoning. Greater heights than today’s would be entirely a function of the enlarged FAR, which require more floors to accommodate more square feet, and thus a loftier building. Not that the new zoning would lead to a sprouting of tall “sliver” buildings — it requires “qualifying sites” to have full-block avenue frontage and a minimum 25,000 square-foot footprint.

7. What’s the catch with “as of right”? A developer would not have to go through time-consuming and costly ULURP. But they’d have to pay the city for each additional square foot desired to build in excess of the current 15 FAR or buy air rights (see No. 10 below).

The payment to the city would buy a District Improvement Bonus (DIB) to help pay for transit and other public-oriented upgrades in the area.

8. How much might that cost? “We’re working on that,” says DCP Manhattan director Edith Hsu-Chen. It won’t come cheap. “It isn’t going to be like at Hudson Yards,” Hsu-Chen said. The DIB in the Yards district, similar to what’s proposed near Grand Central, is $120 per square foot. “This will be more,” she said.

9). What about “special permits”? You could build larger than under the as-of-right framework at certain locations — up to 30 FAR in the square described in No. 6 above, and to 24 FAR on Park Avenue north of it to 57th Street. But those proposals must go through ULURP. Plus, a design must be approved by the DCP, which would decide whether it delivers “a superior relationship to other buildings, the skyline and the sidewalk.”

10. To build the maximum size allowed under either option, must I buy all the bonus FAR from the city? In much of the overall rezoned district, yes. But there’s another option in the “Grand Central Subdistrict” which includes much of the land from 39th-49th streets.

There, you’d still have to buy at least the first three additional FAR as a DIB. But you could also buy the rest in the form of development (air) rights from Grand Central area landmarks. Nearly all the roughly 1.5 million square feet of available air rights are those attached to Grand Central Terminal itself. They are owned by Andrew S. Penson’s Argent Ventures, which — as Lois Weiss first reported way back in 2007 — bought the land under the station and the air above it.

11. So one day the city and Argent could be in competition to sell FAR to the same developer? That’s the way it sounds to us.

12). What does “one day” mean?” The new zoning won’t take effect until 2017, because Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden wants to protect the Hudson Yards District from competition in the short run. Or even the appearance of competition — since many real estate insiders say that a rezoned Midtown East wouldn’t really compete with Hudson Yards, which will have larger footprints and floor plates and lower tenant costs due to subsidies.

[...]
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz20uy3ETe8
__________________
We are floating in space...

Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by desertpunk; July 18th, 2012 at 12:42 AM.
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 12:44 AM   #112
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

i surely do hope we can get larger skyscrapers, like 1500ft+ and a 2000 footer..come on..it cna't hurt :p
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 01:12 AM   #113
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Filipe1 View Post
i surely do hope we can get larger skyscrapers, like 1500ft+ and a 2000 footer..come on..it cna't hurt :p
Things are complicated in NY, the planning process is strict. It's not like in China where you can just throw up a 600m tower and have it built. This is building right in the middle of Manhattan so many factors are involved. Also, given that office towers tend to be shorter and fatter, I don't know if these plots could yield such a height given the FAR. Best hope is probably a mixed use tower if that is allowed.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 02:24 AM   #114
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Things are complicated in NY, the planning process is strict. It's not like in China where you can just throw up a 600m tower and have it built. This is building right in the middle of Manhattan so many factors are involved. Also, given that office towers tend to be shorter and fatter, I don't know if these plots could yield such a height given the FAR. Best hope is probably a mixed use tower if that is allowed.
what makes it more complicated?
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 07:51 PM   #115
babybackribs2314
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 560
Likes (Received): 545

Human rights and the fact that things are only built via supply and demand here, to start... lol.
__________________
My blog with photo updates and development news: New York YIMBY

& follow YIMBY on Twitter! New York YIMBY Twitter
babybackribs2314 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2012, 08:33 PM   #116
JD47
Registered User
 
JD47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3,849
Likes (Received): 306

I hope to move to NYC in the next 7 years. Will all these highrise towers be built by then? It would be great to see.
JD47 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2012, 11:54 PM   #117
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Noir View Post
There's a website out there somewhere with satellite pics of the cities, but I don't remember the address.

It's not directly related to the supertalls, since they're in the active cities, but a general observation about the way things work over there these days. I think someone's going to complain about derailing the thread soon though, so I'll stop here.
Back on topic NOW! just kidding that video was good, its actually sad to see nice cities like that empty, its going to suck when there economy goes down the toliet..
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 12:34 AM   #118
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,718
Likes (Received): 23040

a vision of this area of Manhattan in 2040


Curbed NY
Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 01:32 AM   #119
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 288
Likes (Received): 15

Grand Central Tower should be a Megatall. A megatall and the significance/importance/history of Grand Central Station go hand in hand... heck, even the word "Grand" in the name "Grand Central Station" describes a megatall better than anything else in NYC..well, except "Empire" of course..but since ESB is already there, it's Grand Central's turn
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2012, 05:36 AM   #120
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quit talking nonsense. Everybody here knows that's never going to happen.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc 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 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium