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 > 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 January 11th, 2014, 06:44 PM   #21
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,510
Likes (Received): 22488

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
This is real. No one will forego those air rights. It would be like burning money.
then again, this is New York. I agree that this one has a real chance of being built. There's just some big IFs which need to occur first.
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 11th, 2014, 07:43 PM   #22
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,339
Likes (Received): 3585

Yeah, guys. Nobody's debating that there are a bunch of air rights gathered here that somebody will develop at some point. But that doesn't make it a proposal. All we have at this point is that the site has hit the market (and for the right buyer, so will Sherwood's), which would mean this development is actually LESS far along than it was before. As in (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but) these guys were the developers, and are now selling, so until someone like Wanda comes along, there's NO DEVELOPER.

So, what, we're creating a thread for it because someone posted an article with some numbers to it that anyone could have pieced together from the zoning? Why don't we then create threads for every contiguous parcel in Manhattan, and do the math to list them by maximum allowable height?

Because that would mean a million threads is why.
__________________
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2014, 07:56 PM   #23
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

^I'm with you there. We should be able to differentiate between an actual proposal and a potential development. I think we could very well create a thread for the latter so not to make things too confusing....and not get ahead of ourselves.

Last edited by Ghostface79; January 11th, 2014 at 08:02 PM.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2014, 10:11 PM   #24
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Yeah, guys. Nobody's debating that there are a bunch of air rights gathered here that somebody will develop at some point. But that doesn't make it a proposal. All we have at this point is that the site has hit the market (and for the right buyer, so will Sherwood's), which would mean this development is actually LESS far along than it was before. As in (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but) these guys were the developers, and are now selling...
Sherwood develops small, low-key projects in fringe areas (like this was). They have stated from day one that they are not in the business of building 300m+ towers and NEVER intended to develop a site with a 2.5m sf tower.

I can honestly see a Chinese company coming in and building now.
__________________

Subsequence liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2014, 11:45 PM   #25
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Yeah, guys. Nobody's debating that there are a bunch of air rights gathered here that somebody will develop at some point. But that doesn't make it a proposal. All we have at this point is that the site has hit the market (and for the right buyer, so will Sherwood's), which would mean this development is actually LESS far along than it was before. As in (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but) these guys were the developers, and are now selling, so until someone like Wanda comes along, there's NO DEVELOPER. So, what, we're creating a thread for it because someone posted an article with some numbers to it that anyone could have pieced together from the zoning? Why don't we then create threads for every contiguous parcel in Manhattan, and do the math to list them by maximum allowable height? Because that would mean a million threads is why.
True, I may have honestly jumped the gun with creating this thread. I apologize if this thread has ruffled some feathers & have no problem moving this thread and merge it back to 447 10th until lot has been purchased and merge everything back into a new thread when it warrants it. It's the Mods call.

With that said, I agree with RW that there is a real possibility that a foreign entity such as the Chinese could seriously make a play for this and ultimately Sherwood's. Sherwood IMO is in the business of investing and now may be a good time to put theirs in the market since their silent partner has decided to sell their half for an estimated $200m. I don't know how much either party paid for theirs but I'm sure they will get an amazing return. Frank McCourt just purchased 360 10th for $170 million so $200 m each seems fair market for the Rosenthal & Sherwood.

2013 has been amazing year with foreign entities investing in NYC and it is expected that 2014 will be in the stratosphere so we shall see. The Chinese most especially are expected to bring their investments to another level.

A) At least we know once a sale has been made, another supertall has been identified for max 1,800 ft and that is w/o Sherwood's half.

Quote:
Selling Just Rosenthals' half of the land, which could trade for more than $200 million and can host up to 1.2 Million square feet of development as well as reach 1,800 feet in height. (Nordstrom has 1.2 m sq ft)
B) Now with the Two sites combined.

Quote:
Together the Two sites could allow for an 1,800 foot mega tower nearly 2.5 million square feet in size - what would be the tallest and largest, buildings in the city. (1 WTC has 2.5 m sq ft)
Both scenarios A and B can yield a 1,800 ft tower.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 12:14 AM   #26
nyc15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 188
Likes (Received): 158

1800 ft to the roof with spire can reach the 2132 ft,very nice to see a new tallest building in new york city!!!!
2014 skyscraper boom
nyc15 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 12:27 AM   #27
Funkyskunk2
Registered User
 
Funkyskunk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 808

I actually think 1800 with 1.2 is a mistake. That would take one hell of a spire.
Funkyskunk2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 12:33 AM   #28
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Sherwood's site alone has 2.5m sf:

http://media.crainsnewyork.com/video...n-hudson-yards

Katz knows better than some reporter for Curbed does how much sf his site has.

As far as this thread being premature, what about the Chicago Post Office thread, the Chi "Realtor" tower thread, and the Seattle "pie in the sky" supertall thread, among others?
__________________

Last edited by RobertWalpole; January 12th, 2014 at 01:08 AM.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 01:39 AM   #29
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

For sure there a quite a few premature and mislabeled threads on this site, it doesn't mean we have to do as they do.
This is a very valid project to discuss, I just don't think it falls in the "proposed supertalls" category; but let's not make a big deal out of it, it's not like we're reporting for the Times.

Last edited by Ghostface79; January 12th, 2014 at 01:57 AM.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 06:50 PM   #30
meh_cd
Registered User
 
meh_cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 874
Likes (Received): 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
Sherwood's site alone has 2.5m sf:

http://media.crainsnewyork.com/video...n-hudson-yards

Katz knows better than some reporter for Curbed does how much sf his site has.

As far as this thread being premature, what about the Chicago Post Office thread, the Chi "Realtor" tower thread, and the Seattle "pie in the sky" supertall thread, among others?
Close them too. I don't know why you have such a fixation with Chicago.
meh_cd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 07:41 PM   #31
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8230

shouldn't the title be hudson spire? it is already confusing enough with the new york buildings that have no name, but the ones that have one should have it in the title :p
__________________

TowerVerre:), L.A.F.2. liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 10:40 PM   #32
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028

I'm looking at the building for the first time and already I love it! Even though the current "design" is just a placeholder, showing what could be built, I like it more than the Hudson Yards North and South Tower (I like those buildings, but the North is just a little too fat and the South is cute and compliments the North Tower, but wouldn't be great by itself).

For it to be the tallest building in New York, it'd have to surpass 1 WTC (which is a confirmed 1,776 feet; I wonder how the 432 Park Avenue guys felt on November 12th!) So, It could be 1,777 feet for all that matters. And maybe they won't even add a spire, even though vanity height is a big thing worldwide. But if it's city's tallest building, it'd probably be a good 50 feet taller than 1 WTC, probably even more. So, if we have a 1,900 foot building by roof height, for example, New Yorkers would be thrilled too have a building like this.

But then again, let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height. And even if it does, it will never be a "serious" competitor in the world (let's say, top ten tallest buildings), because by the time this gets built, Kingdom Tower will almost be completed (and a bunch of other projects that have not been heard of as of early 2014).
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 11:17 PM   #33
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post
let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height.
I completely disagree!

If there is a plot in NYC to build a mega tower, The Hudson Yards is the place.

The Far West Side of Manhattan is our gold rush as far as development. It's the Wild Wild West as this area had been rezoned to accommodate such projects as this.

There are no Nimby's to contend with because this area is pretty barren with nothing to protect. "Development" here is not a bad word.

This piece of land is jackpot. As of right project with no landmark committees to contend with, etc. right in the middle of one of the most exciting and emerging land development in the world.

This property will get snapped up quickly. This is the sort of project Gary Barnet would love. As of right development with no contention and already assembled.

360 Tenth Ave was bought by Frank McCourt for $170 million and Spitzer bought Alloys for $90 million when both properties where out in the market for 2-4 months tops only.
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)

Ghostface79 liked this post

Last edited by Vertical_Gotham; January 13th, 2014 at 12:04 AM.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2014, 11:20 PM   #34
N.Y.C.H
Registered User
 
N.Y.C.H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 407

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post
I'm looking at the building for the first time and already I love it! Even though the current "design" is just a placeholder, showing what could be built, I like it more than the Hudson Yards North and South Tower (I like those buildings, but the North is just a little too fat and the South is cute and compliments the North Tower, but wouldn't be great by itself).

For it to be the tallest building in New York, it'd have to surpass 1 WTC (which is a confirmed 1,776 feet; I wonder how the 432 Park Avenue guys felt on November 12th!) So, It could be 1,777 feet for all that matters. And maybe they won't even add a spire, even though vanity height is a big thing worldwide. But if it's city's tallest building, it'd probably be a good 50 feet taller than 1 WTC, probably even more. So, if we have a 1,900 foot building by roof height, for example, New Yorkers would be thrilled too have a building like this.

But then again, let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height. And even if it does, it will never be a "serious" competitor in the world (let's say, top ten tallest buildings), because by the time this gets built, Kingdom Tower will almost be completed (and a bunch of other projects that have not been heard of as of early 2014).
New Yorkers don't care about how tall a building is, neither does 98.7% of the rest of the world. The idea that everyone is fascinated with tall buildings or that all of New York would be lacking if it didn't have a top ten tallest building is ridiculous.
__________________

Vertical_Gotham, Manitopiaaa liked this post
N.Y.C.H no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 12:09 AM   #35
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
shouldn't the title be hudson spire? it is already confusing enough with the new york buildings that have no name, but the ones that have one should have it in the title :p
I think it's a perfect name for such a tower in the Yards.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 12:14 AM   #36
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10266

If it wants Chinese tenants, maybe '8888 Hudson Spire' would be best.
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 12:21 AM   #37
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,573
Likes (Received): 28124

just make it 666 meter tall. 6 is a lucky number.
__________________

Vertical_Gotham liked this post
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 12:43 AM   #38
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10266

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Offereins View Post
just make it 666 meter tall. 6 is a lucky number.
Better yet, 666 floors, 8888ft!
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 12:47 AM   #39
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

This is awesome! Great height, design, and location. What's not to love? If this gets built I'll be ecstatic.
__________________
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2014, 05:39 AM   #40
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

Barring another economic downturn, I don't see a scenario where someone wouldn't develop this site. I doubt there is anyone other site in the city that can offer you this amount of space, at that height, with much less hurdles and in a neighborhood that will be the next big thing in NYC. It's just a matter of which developer is looking for that trophy tower, and those aren't lacking in the city.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
435 10th ave., hudson spire, hudson yards, new york, 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 06:35 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