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 April 4th, 2014, 11:16 PM   #401
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Dear god I don't know how many times I can repeat myself
__________________

Eric Offereins liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 5th, 2014, 02:48 AM   #402
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Quote:
Originally Posted by j-biz
WTC is an embarrassment?? GTFO of here!

The World Trade Center is REAL. This is FANTASY.

I'd rather see 3 and 2 built any day before this.
Yes, WTC is an embarrassment. And you resorting to telling me to "GTFO" just because you don't like my opinion is pathetic, really.
Is the WTC a negative development? Of course not. But it is cheapened, shaved down, and is progressing at a slow rate. And even in its original plan, it is not that audacious. It could have been a monumental improvement on the original WTC, and instead it is a decent looking replacement.
And this is not a fantasy, it is proposed. Are two and three WTC that much more real? They aren't built, and while I'm sure something will be built there eventually, there are no guarantees that it will be the originally planned towers at the originally planned height.
And there is no doubt that if built at maximum potential height, this project will have a greater impact on the skyline as a whole than two or three WTC.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.

Kanto liked this post
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 02:59 AM   #403
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkyskunk2

Blue flame called it that. I thought it was absurd.
Yes, by today's standards 1170ft is a shrimp. Where will it rank by the the time it is finished? 30th tallest? 50th?
And yeah, I can hear the lame old argument emerging again - "Height isn't eveything!". Really why is anyone so in love with the WTC site? They are just a couple of faceted boxes covered in glass. And while 2 WTC promises to be better, its a long way from being built. No outstanding designs+no outstanding height = a disappointing project. So yes, even the potential of something great here is more exciting than the alternative.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.

Makaveli96 liked this post
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 03:04 AM   #404
Funkyskunk2
Registered User
 
Funkyskunk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 808

This site, non-consolidated has 1.2 million square feet. 3wtc dwarfs this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
And this is not a fantasy, it is proposed. Are two and three WTC that much more real?
__________________

MarshallKnight liked this post
Funkyskunk2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 03:11 AM   #405
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,343
Likes (Received): 3590

You beat me to my first point, Funky, but point two is: No, this is not in fact proposed. It is a collection of development rights and marketing materials that someone is trying to sell. There is no developer. There is no design. There are no permits of any kind being filed. Something that doesn't even have a developer attached can hardly be considered proposed.

By comparison, the technically challenging parts of WTC 2 and 3 have already been completed, and are merely awaiting the necessary financing to rise to their intended heights. So yes, they are a hell of a lot more real.
__________________

Funkyskunk2 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 03:18 AM   #406
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
Yes, by today's standards 1170ft is a shrimp. Where will it rank by the the time it is finished? 30th tallest? 50th?
And yeah, I can hear the lame old argument emerging again - "Height isn't eveything!". Really why is anyone so in love with the WTC site? They are just a couple of faceted boxes covered in glass. And while 2 WTC promises to be better, its a long way from being built. No outstanding designs+no outstanding height = a disappointing project. So yes, even the potential of something great here is more exciting than the alternative.
Yes 1,170 foot buildings are so tiny, which is why there are just so many of them on planet earth. 30th or 50th tallest in a world of several thousand skyscrapers is nothing to complain about especially since there will be several taller in the USA and NYC. There will be 2 taller even on the WTC site alone so what's the big deal?

So China builds a billion supertalls it doesn't need, why do people care so much? Go move to China if you want to see more 1170 foot buildings, having been there I would much prefer to live in the USA by far.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 03:39 AM   #407
wilfred267
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 140
Likes (Received): 72

Something significant will rise there. You have to remember that Tishman was originally set to develop the Hudson Yards. lf they buy those two sites l would think that they would want to build something spectacular to compete with Related. Just a guess.
wilfred267 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 03:51 AM   #408
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4623

Blue Flame - All I'm going to say is your points are so invalid. I don't even think you know what you're talking about.
__________________
#Save2WTC

Last edited by weidncol; April 5th, 2014 at 04:16 AM.
weidncol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 03:59 AM   #409
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
Yes, by today's standards 1170ft is a shrimp. Where will it rank by the the time it is finished? 30th tallest? 50th?
And yeah, I can hear the lame old argument emerging again - "Height isn't eveything!". Really why is anyone so in love with the WTC site? They are just a couple of faceted boxes covered in glass. And while 2 WTC promises to be better, its a long way from being built. No outstanding designs+no outstanding height = a disappointing project. So yes, even the potential of something great here is more exciting than the alternative.
That's ridiculous. NY and Chi are the only cities in the Americas, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. with towers whose roofs equal or exceed 1,170, and there are only a few towers in those 2 cities which exceed that height.

The WTC is awesome. It will be built in full in time.

Last edited by RobertWalpole; April 5th, 2014 at 06:37 AM.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 05:47 AM   #410
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

1170 would be the fourth tallest building in Shanghai, and it will be even lower than that in NYC.

I don't get the disappointment.
__________________

LeandroPappalardo liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 06:27 AM   #411
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,526
Likes (Received): 22562

I would rather a tenant go to the WTC. Just to contribute to the ongoing conversation, less than 15 towers in the entirety of the US would be taller than 3 WTC.
1 WTC
2 WTC
432 Park
215 w 57th St
1 Vanderbilt (likely)
111 w 57th St
Empire State Building
Willis Tower
Trump Chicago
30 Hudson Yards
BoA (spire)
you could also throw in the Twins to that list.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 07:22 AM   #412
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,526
Likes (Received): 22562

cool, here's the online article. It will be in the 6th's paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/re...ealestate&_r=0
__________________
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 08:21 AM   #413
j-biz
rasorio caelum civitatem
 
j-biz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,309
Likes (Received): 2793

Amazing! Congrats to Nikolai / YIMBY / Babybackribs!
__________________

citybooster liked this post
j-biz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 06:03 PM   #414
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Quote:
Originally Posted by weidncol
Blue Flame - All I'm going to say is your points are so invalid. I don't even think you know what you're talking about.
What's invalid about them? That even the potential of the Hudson Spire is more exciting than 3WTC? That the WTC is an imbarassment? I did say it was my opinion but there is plenty of validation for that.
One WTC is, as I have stated before, and uncharismatic design. If it were half of it's height, it wouldn't even be noticed. And then there is the fiasco with the spire, which somehow managed to weasel its way into the tallest building in the US ( undeservingly, if you ask me). 3 and 4 WTC are both rather uninteresting designs, IMO,and with only reasonably tall heights don't stand out much. 2 WTC is excellent, but is a long way from being completed.
And lastly, in regards to the comment that roughly said " If you want to see dozens of supertalls, go move to China." The real question is, Why should I have to? The US used to be interested in building great, record breaking buildings, and the notion of being satisfied with not even coming close anymore is unacceptable to me. Height does matter. If it doesn't, why be on a skyscraper forum?
The reason the Hudson Spire concept grabbed so much attention was because of its' height, not its design. And plainly put, that's why I'm more interested in this potential project.
Please don't get me wrong, I love the WTC, I just think the site deserves better than what it has received, and hope that the Hudson Spire at least has the chance of offering New York a new superlative to redefine the skyline upward in a positive way.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.

Kanto liked this post
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 07:40 PM   #415
Lowkey Lion
Registered User
 
Lowkey Lion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 117
Likes (Received): 64

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
FYI: there's an article in the NYT re: our colleague, Yimby!
Congrats, YIMBY!
Lowkey Lion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 09:02 PM   #416
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
What's invalid about them? That even the potential of the Hudson Spire is more exciting than 3WTC? That the WTC is an imbarassment? I did say it was my opinion but there is plenty of validation for that.
One WTC is, as I have stated before, and uncharismatic design. If it were half of it's height, it wouldn't even be noticed. And then there is the fiasco with the spire, which somehow managed to weasel its way into the tallest building in the US ( undeservingly, if you ask me). 3 and 4 WTC are both rather uninteresting designs, IMO,and with only reasonably tall heights don't stand out much. 2 WTC is excellent, but is a long way from being completed.
And lastly, in regards to the comment that roughly said " If you want to see dozens of supertalls, go move to China." The real question is, Why should I have to? The US used to be interested in building great, record breaking buildings, and the notion of being satisfied with not even coming close anymore is unacceptable to me. Height does matter. If it doesn't, why be on a skyscraper forum?
The reason the Hudson Spire concept grabbed so much attention was because of its' height, not its design. And plainly put, that's why I'm more interested in this potential project.
Please don't get me wrong, I love the WTC, I just think the site deserves better than what it has received, and hope that the Hudson Spire at least has the chance of offering New York a new superlative to redefine the skyline upward in a positive way.
Height is temporary. Design lasts forever.
__________________

Ghostface79 liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 09:19 PM   #417
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
Height is temporary. Design lasts forever.
My turn to laugh.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 09:27 PM   #418
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
My turn to laugh.
You shouldn't. Everyone in this thread is tiptoeing around your posts because they're so misjudged and ignorant and naive that responding to them appropriately would breach the forum's rules of conduct. When thirty people all agree that you're wrong, take the hint and shut up.

A well designed building will be loved and appreciated for as long as it stands. A building whose sole purpose to exist is to be tall will only be tall for a short period of time. Obviously these aren't mutually exclusive factors, but one is vastly more important than the other.

I mean, everyone on the forum immediately dismissed every one of your opinions the moment you said 4WTC was an uninteresting design. Anyone who knows anything about architecture or building design or art in general recognizes the achievement that is 4WTC. It's like you're a child complaining that Casablanca is boring because it's in black and white. Well I have some flashy, technicolor blockbusters over here that will keep you entertained for a while. They're all in Dubai.
__________________

Eric Offereins, Tower Dude liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 10:30 PM   #419
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
You shouldn't. Everyone in this thread is tiptoeing around your posts because they're so misjudged and ignorant and naive that responding to them appropriately would breach the forum's rules of conduct. When thirty people all agree that you're wrong, take the hint and shut up.

A well designed building will be loved and appreciated for as long as it stands. A building whose sole purpose to exist is to be tall will only be tall for a short period of time. Obviously these aren't mutually exclusive factors, but one is vastly more important than the other.

I mean, everyone on the forum immediately dismissed every one of your opinions the moment you said 4WTC was an uninteresting design. Anyone who knows anything about architecture or building design or art in general recognizes the achievement that is 4WTC. It's like you're a child complaining that Casablanca is boring because it's in black and white. Well I have some flashy, technicolor blockbusters over here that will keep you entertained for a while. They're all in Dubai.
Oh, spare me, really. Only a pretentious artist would claim 4 WTC is a great design. Elegant and understated is one thing, underdesigned is another. The Chrysler Building is an elegant design, 4 WTC is boring. I've reviewed through all the details on 4 WTC and if it weren't in NYC, it would be practically ignored.
The misinformed one here is you. I'm not the one that feels I need to defend the WTC against someone else's personal opinion. And you and several others have managed to twist my opinion into an off-topic rant.

Secondly, not everyone just complacently agrees with your blind support for the WTC. And my opinion, that it is not up to par with what NYC deserves, is a perfectly valid position. You are the one losing your cool here.
I'm sorry for you that you are content to settle for less. You really believe that "height is temporary, but design lasts forever"? Design is as temporary and subjective as height. This argument is proof of that. Besides, I never said design is less important than height, I simply noted that that both 3 and 4 WTC are lacking in both. Anyone with a legitimately erudite opinion would recognize that height is part of design, not some separate entity.
The very nature of this thread is proof of the importance of height- we don't even have the final design and just the potential for a building ~1800ft. tall has everyone excited. What's wrong with that? I think you forget this is a skyscraper forum.
Anger makes for a poor argument. Keep that in mind.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.

Kanto liked this post
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2014, 10:46 PM   #420
N.Y.C.H
Registered User
 
N.Y.C.H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 407

how is ~1000 ft for both 4 and 3 WTC lacking? You live in Kentucky, lets be real, have you even seen a skyscraper.
N.Y.C.H 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 04:56 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