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 > Highrises

Highrises Discussions of projects under construction between 100-199m/300-649ft tall.
» Proposed Highrises



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 November 13th, 2012, 11:38 PM   #21
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,214
Likes (Received): 769

Certainly one of the nicer projects in NYC, and by nicer I mean better than 432 Park.

Seriously, we should make 432 our whipping building.
__________________

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

Sponsored Links
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:43 PM   #22
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

is their any chance of this one being a supertall? or will it stay just shy of one
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:00 AM   #23
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloripaNation View Post
Looks so asian scrapers.
That proposal won't be built.

The developer has since acquired all of the lowrise buildings that sit in front of the proposed tower on Madison. A much larger tower will rise here.

RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:53 PM   #24
seb.nl
Registered User
 
seb.nl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eindhoven
Posts: 2,376
Likes (Received): 1277

Tacky... I hope the new proposal looks less Dubai
seb.nl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2012, 11:44 PM   #25
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,504
Likes (Received): 6525

Remove the spire, and it has nothing to do with dubai anymore
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2012, 04:37 AM   #26
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

JD Carlisle Dev. Co. purchased this site subsequent to the above-posted rendering. They also purchased all of the little buildings on Madison which will now be razed.

JD Carlisle is the same developer for 105 W 57th St. Although that's a dramatically more upscale area, they nevertheless are creating a great project there. Hopefully, they'll do the same in this up and coming area.

RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 02:42 AM   #27
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

As of 21 Jan 2013, scaffolding has been erected around the entire site. Hopefully, JD Carlisle will build something nice like it plans to at 107 W 57th.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 08:49 PM   #28
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
This ridiculous, Dubai-ish tower (no offense, Dubai) had been planned by the prior developer before the crash. The site has changed hands, and the new owner is attempting to assemble a much larger site. Perhaps a tower in the 250m range might rise here.



No offense, but that tower is hardly 'ridiculous'. It is actually a more interesting design than many towers going up in NYC IMO, despite its un-NY/Asian characteristics. I'd be happy enough with this tower.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 09:18 PM   #29
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

That's not what's being built. The developer has acquired the full block, but for the nice old tower on the extreme south side of the block.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 09:30 PM   #30
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

I hope a new design will have a higher roof height without a spire. The idea of having 3 square corners and 1 rounded ( like 17 State St ) was nice though.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 09:38 PM   #31
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,214
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
No offense, but that tower is hardly 'ridiculous'. It is actually a more interesting design than many towers going up in NYC IMO, despite its un-NY/Asian characteristics. I'd be happy enough with this tower.
Agreed, I hate all the so-called "intellectual" sentiment that Manhattan is too advanced to build interesting buildings. It did the early parts of the twentieth century, and I suppose the mid-century with the Seagram Building, etc.

Still, that doesn't mean more boxes and Art Deco imitations should continue to be constructed, especially all the skinny ones. In fact, as I've been constantly arguing, the prevalence of boxes are very un-NY. The city lost the Singer Building, other office buildings, many grand hotels, and mansions so equally impressive buildings must be constructed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
That's not what's being built. The developer has acquired the full block, but for the nice old tower on the extreme south side of the block.
Are you referring to 152 Madison? I personally would not consider it a loss if demolished, but maybe 15 East 32nd Street if the new proposal is boring. I'm eager and worried at the same time to see the new render, as these are the same people who built the Eventi Hotel and the Beatrice Residences.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by RegentHouse; January 23rd, 2013 at 11:38 PM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 02:19 AM   #32
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Manhattan doesn't build any more boxes than any other city that builds massive amounts of towers (e.g., Chicago, HK, Shanghai, etc.) Chicago, in particular, is building nothing but 500 foot tall, bland boxes at the moment.

Unlike Chicago, for example, NY currently has scores of great buildings under construction, or about to begin construction, such as:

400 PAS
56 Leonard
The BIG Pyramid
Coach Tower
HY North Tower
Girasole
E Tower
Torre Verre , etc

Last edited by RobertWalpole; January 24th, 2013 at 03:11 AM.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 06:44 AM   #33
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,214
Likes (Received): 769

All true, but Chicago has a lot more architectural merit than NYC. Apart from the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 and being the birthplace of the skyscraper, factors which created an architectural identity for America, stupid setback laws weren't enforced to stifle architectural innovation and beauty.

Also, a lot more high-profile pre-1930 buildings exist compared to NYC, where many were destroyed. Yes, many were demolished in Chicago as well, but compare Michigan Avenue to Park Avenue. As for what's being built at the moment, I've seen some nice non-boxy projects for Chicago, but most are residential outside of the loop. Los Angeles could actually use more construction, and glass boxes are appropriate there.

Many of the projects you mention are laughable compared to the block-encompassing volume of many Chicago skyscrapers.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 07:28 AM   #34
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
All true, but Chicago has a lot more architectural merit than NYC
I disagree. However, this is subjective. IMO, NY has more beautiful old towers than Chicago. Chicago is too boxy for my taste, Trump aside.

Last edited by aquablue; January 24th, 2013 at 07:34 AM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 02:54 PM   #35
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Also, a lot more high-profile pre-1930 buildings exist compared to NYC, where many were destroyed. Yes, many were demolished in Chicago as well, but compare Michigan Avenue to Park Avenue. As for what's being built at the moment, I've seen some nice non-boxy projects for Chicago, but most are residential outside of the loop. Los Angeles could actually use more construction, and glass boxes are appropriate there.

Many of the projects you mention are laughable compared to the block-encompassing volume of many Chicago skyscrapers.
You're an idiot and clearly have no knowledge of either city. NY has way more pre-1930s buildings.

You're either 13 years old, retarded, or a troll (or a combination of the three).
__________________

aquablue liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 03:35 PM   #36
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 RegentHouse View Post
All true, but Chicago has a lot more architectural merit than NYC. Apart from the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 and being the birthplace of the skyscraper, factors which created an architectural identity for America, stupid setback laws weren't enforced to stifle architectural innovation and beauty.

Also, a lot more high-profile pre-1930 buildings exist compared to NYC, where many were destroyed. Yes, many were demolished in Chicago as well, but compare Michigan Avenue to Park Avenue. As for what's being built at the moment, I've seen some nice non-boxy projects for Chicago, but most are residential outside of the loop. Los Angeles could actually use more construction, and glass boxes are appropriate there.

Many of the projects you mention are laughable compared to the block-encompassing volume of many Chicago skyscrapers.
These two cities are the most beautiful cities in the world in my opinion. I disagree that NYC is laughable, it has incredible masterpieces from all eras and architectural styles and many more masterpieces constructed or planned for the near future.
__________________
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 January 24th, 2013, 06:33 PM   #37
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
All true, but Chicago has a lot more architectural merit than NYC. Apart from the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 and being the birthplace of the skyscraper, factors which created an architectural identity for America, stupid setback laws weren't enforced to stifle architectural innovation and beauty.

Also, a lot more high-profile pre-1930 buildings exist compared to NYC, where many were destroyed. Yes, many were demolished in Chicago as well, but compare Michigan Avenue to Park Avenue. As for what's being built at the moment, I've seen some nice non-boxy projects for Chicago, but most are residential outside of the loop. Los Angeles could actually use more construction, and glass boxes are appropriate there.

Many of the projects you mention are laughable compared to the block-encompassing volume of many Chicago skyscrapers.
This is just factually incorrect.

How about you compare 5th Avenue south or Broadway through SoHo to Michigan Avenue?
__________________

Kanto liked this post
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 06:55 PM   #38
HK999
University of HK / 香港大學
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hong Kong SAR / 香港特區
Posts: 3,389
Likes (Received): 336

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post

Many of the projects you mention are laughable compared to the block-encompassing volume of many Chicago skyscrapers.
Even if you say so, at least New York is building skyscrapers.
__________________
Sapientia et Virtus 明德格物
Industrial Organization, MSc

Kanto liked this post
HK999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 10:52 PM   #39
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,214
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
You're an idiot and clearly have no knowledge of either city. NY has way more pre-1930s buildings.

You're either 13 years old, retarded, or a troll (or a combination of the three).
Add ten years, about fifty IQ points, and well... I don't intend to troll, but the fact that Chicago has more superior classical architecture to NYC is quite simply my opinion. How about I reword what I said? Say...

"...a lot more high-profile pre-Art Moderne/Art Deco/early modernist movement buildings exist (Wrigley Building, most of Burnham's buildings, and the Drake Hotel), compared to NYC, which enacted a stupid law that ruined what would otherwise change my opinion. Also, many pre-1916 NYC buildings comparable to said buildings were destroyed (Singer Building, Penn Station, and the Astor Hotel)."

I WILL admit New York has some buildings better than anything in Chicago (120 Broadway, Park Row Building, and most of the Flatiron District), but when taking all the "newer" buildings into consideration, my opinion is skewed and Chicago wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
This is just factually incorrect.

How about you compare 5th Avenue south or Broadway through SoHo to Michigan Avenue?
5th Avenue South is a completely different generation of buildings from anything in Chicago, mainly from the fire. Also, Park Avenue's buildings are around the same size as Michigan Avenue, and historically it's an upscale residential district that has commercialization to suit the needs of it's well-off residents. Also, usually each are considered today as main representations of the cities.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 10:56 PM   #40
1Filipe1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Add ten years, about fifty IQ points, and well... I don't intend to troll, but the fact that Chicago has more superior classical architecture to NYC is quite simply my opinion. How about I reword what I said? Say...

"...a lot more high-profile pre-Art Moderne/Art Deco/early modernist movement buildings exist (Wrigley Building, most of Burnham's buildings, and the Drake Hotel), compared to NYC, which enacted a stupid law that ruined what would otherwise change my opinion. Also, many pre-1916 NYC buildings comparable to said buildings were destroyed (Singer Building, Penn Station, and the Astor Hotel)."

I WILL admit New York has some buildings better than anything in Chicago (120 Broadway, Park Row Building, and most of the Flatiron District), but when taking all the "newer" buildings into consideration, my opinion is skewed and Chicago wins.



5th Avenue South is a completely different generation of buildings from anything in Chicago, mainly from the fire. Also, Park Avenue's buildings are around the same size as Michigan Avenue, and historically it's an upscale residential district that has commercialization to suit the needs of it's well-off residents. Also, usually each are considered today as main representations of the cities.
if that is your opinion why do you feel you need to express it on a new york building proposal..? quick question..have you even ever been to nyc? lol
1Filipe1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
160 madison ave., midtown, nyc

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 04:55 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