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 11th, 2014, 04:35 PM   #461
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

There's no way a 2.5m sf tower won't be at least 300m.
__________________

Birmingham liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 11th, 2014, 04:50 PM   #462
Birmingham
Now Tamworth
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,037
Likes (Received): 4015

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamtheSTIG View Post
I agree with Robert, they'll probably try and make it an economical tower, so around 300-400m would be good for them; this is partly the reason as to why the other Hudson Yards towers are less than 400m

With this square footage, it can also easily not make the 300m mark!

So don't get your hopes up
If it was fatter than Winston Churchill, maybe.

Going on some of the largest floor plates in respective continents for comparison ...

If it had the same floor plates as the Burj Dubai it would be 439m, 1 World Trade Centre it would be 321m, 1 Canada Square it would be 490m.

Other words it would have to have a ridiculously large floor plate which is maintained all the way to the top not to break 300m.
Birmingham está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 05:44 PM   #463
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
They may very we'll make an icon, but I suspect that it will be between 300 and 400m.
We will see... if they just had one parcel I can see that but I just don't see them going after both and then just going conservative, maybe 1,300 or so feet. With 2.5 million square feet, and getting a foothold on the West Side after losing out on HY... I just don't see them holding back if they can make it work. They don't have any other area in NY they could dare go that high, with that amount of floor space. This is supposed to be a thread about awesome possibilities... whatever is built there, great but it doesn't hurt to think big!
__________________

Kanto liked this post
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 06:26 PM   #464
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

I agree with RW as well. We all know cost of construction especially in Manhattan is extremely expensive with the cost of land, inflated labor & material costs would make it very difficult to build such a tower.

If T&S decides to make a play with Sherwood's lot, the land acquisition costs to begin with will be very costly. We are talking about a total of $400-$450 m for both plots and easily $2.5 B to build?? How will they get a good ROI and obviously the math needs to work.

There are 2 realistic ways I can see such a tower of height.

#1) Joint venture with Sherwood to divide costs or...

#2) Ironically, Just build on Rosenthal's lot with a narrow footprint and build close to the Hudson Spire concept. This scenario would be cheaper achieving such a height vs the 2.5 msf one IMO.

But if T&S has the will and desire and the means, a uber luxury residential component is required in any scenario to achieve and make such investment a worthy one.

If they have more residential sf component for development, that would be ideal. I'm not sure how much residential sf development rights this site will have for a 2.5msf heffer.

These days in New York, residential is the way to go for such a tower.

If T&S buys both plots I can easily see a 1450' 2.5 msf tower just to be the center piece of the Hudson Yards and I will be ecstatic but hopefully I'm wrong and they max out height wise.

I dunno.. We shall see how it will all unfolds.
__________________
-------------------------



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

Kanto, citybooster liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 08:15 PM   #465
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3592

They might spend a lot of square footage on a retail base too. If they try to compete with Related's Mall and the 50 HY retail base, we could be talking a couple hundred thousand square feet.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 09:19 PM   #466
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
Robert's right.

Making a statement is - and always will be - an important aspect of skyscraper design. But it's not the highest priority. Economics, in the end, will determine what this building is.

You don't get to a position to be able to build something like this on a Howard Hughes-esque ego trip. Even Donald Trump, a complete maniac, didn't go overboard with his Chicago thing.

300-400m, maybe with a spire pushing it to 450m, is about what you'd expect considering the location and true fiscal realities of the city. Especially considering the benefits to attracting tenants by maximizing floor space.
True but with that logic NY would never see a building much past the 400 meter range which is kind of disappointing.

I think a 2.5 million SF building would definitely be a supertall though, maybe even 400 meters or so if it's skinny.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 09:29 PM   #467
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3592

That is the kind of logic these developers use.

2.5MM sf will definitely be supertall, but this speculation about an 1800ft. tower is mostly wishful thinking. There are ways to spread that square footage around with a much higher return on investment.

That said, there is the "ego" angle to consider here, which is not so much personal as it is about marketing. T&S's analysts may tell them that building higher is worth it in the long run in order to steal some of the attention and spotlight away from Related. But that's a much more speculative game to play when you've got a perfectly safe strategy staring you in the face.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 10:02 PM   #468
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,687
Likes (Received): 28297

2,5M sqft is about the size of 1WTC, so expect something similar. I'd say.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 10:12 PM   #469
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Maybe we just live in a more sophisticated society.

Maybe fifty years ago, building a really tall building was seen as impressive, and drew attention from businesses and the public alike. Perhaps these days nobody cares. Or rather, that height alone as a measure of quality is seen as tacky/chintzy, like a gas-guzzling SUV or a vast McMansion.

All the companies in America that will dominate the 21st century - that have the money to build a megatall - are like Apple or Google: eco-friendly, hyper modern tech-sector giants on the west coast.

I can't see Tesla building the world's tallest building, like Sears did back in the day. They'd rather build a two-storey factory with grass on the roof.

Maybe New York City - and most world cities - will just plateau out at ~400m and remain like that forever. And hypertall monstrosities will be looked down on as insane ego-trips for dictatorial oil barons in middle-east hellholes. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
__________________

MarshallKnight liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 10:31 PM   #470
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Offereins View Post
2,5M sqft is about the size of 1WTC, so expect something similar. I'd say.
True, I'd expect this building would be a little narrower though, and maybe include retail.

Is this meant to be mixed use? If so it would probably be narrower/higher.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 10:33 PM   #471
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
Maybe we just live in a more sophisticated society.

Maybe fifty years ago, building a really tall building was seen as impressive, and drew attention from businesses and the public alike. Perhaps these days nobody cares. Or rather, that height alone as a measure of quality is seen as tacky/chintzy, like a gas-guzzling SUV or a vast McMansion.

All the companies in America that will dominate the 21st century - that have the money to build a megatall - are like Apple or Google: eco-friendly, hyper modern tech-sector giants on the west coast.

I can't see Tesla building the world's tallest building, like Sears did back in the day. They'd rather build a two-storey factory with grass on the roof.

Maybe New York City - and most world cities - will just plateau out at ~400m and remain like that forever. And hypertall monstrosities will be looked down on as insane ego-trips for dictatorial oil barons in middle-east hellholes. Maybe that's not a bad thing.

I sort of agree, I don't really want or care about a worlds tallest or whatever in NYC or the US but I think every city needs a signature building, NY could have this if it ends up the tallest and Chicago could have the Chi town spire. Other than that I'll take many buildings in the 3-400 meter range over 1 thousand meter needle in the middle of the desert anyday.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 10:47 PM   #472
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
They may very we'll make an icon, but I suspect that it will be between 300 and 400m.
My bet is 350-450.
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 11:28 PM   #473
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

It wouldn't really be a signature tower at that height in my opinion (unless the desing was really that amazing). This is an opportunity to build an actual signature tower so why not take advantage of that, I'm sure going into the 1500 foot range wouldn't be that much more costly.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 11:51 PM   #474
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 SomeKindOfBug View Post
Maybe we just live in a more sophisticated society.

Maybe fifty years ago, building a really tall building was seen as impressive, and drew attention from businesses and the public alike. Perhaps these days nobody cares. Or rather, that height alone as a measure of quality is seen as tacky/chintzy, like a gas-guzzling SUV or a vast McMansion.

All the companies in America that will dominate the 21st century - that have the money to build a megatall - are like Apple or Google: eco-friendly, hyper modern tech-sector giants on the west coast.

I can't see Tesla building the world's tallest building, like Sears did back in the day. They'd rather build a two-storey factory with grass on the roof.

Maybe New York City - and most world cities - will just plateau out at ~400m and remain like that forever. And hypertall monstrosities will be looked down on as insane ego-trips for dictatorial oil barons in middle-east hellholes. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
I never understood people thinking that there will never be taller buildings than those that are built today. To me that appears to be the same as when some scientists in the 19th century said that everything that can be invented has already been invented. Of course taller buildings will be built, trust me in a century buildings will be measured in kilometers and not in hundreds of meters like they are today. Verticality is the future. Verticality is the only solution to land shortage. Land shortage will be a major issue if Earth's population will grow as it does now (and there are no indications that its growth would get lowered in the upcomming decades). I don't know how tall the Hudson Spire will be, but what I'm pretty confident about is that at the end of this century NYC will have several buildings over a kilometer tall
__________________
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 April 12th, 2014, 12:05 AM   #475
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4607

I don't think his position is that taller buildings will never be built in the city, his point and many others' is that at this stage in the city's real estate landscape, building are profitable up to a certain size. Now that size will vary overtime as we see towers reaching 400m quite casually these days when a decade ago we would be ecstatic with anything reaching 250m. So do I expect towers in the future to reach the 500m-600m mark, absolutely cause land in Manhattan is getting more scarce and the trend shows that developer are building taller, but at this point, it will take a developer wanting to put his mark in the city to get there. Who knows Thishman might be that developer, but I doubt there's such appetite for such a major tower in the HY area, which isn't even a neighborhood yet. We have better chances of seeing a bigger tower downtown or in midtown, especially when the rezoning passes. But again you never know.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 12:23 AM   #476
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

On this I agree. As I said, I don't know what height the Hudson Spire will be, the only thing I know is that a 1 800 feet building will be built in NYC one day. When that day will come and where the building will be located remains to be seen
__________________
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 April 12th, 2014, 07:05 PM   #477
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I never understood people thinking that there will never be taller buildings than those that are built today. To me that appears to be the same as when some scientists in the 19th century said that everything that can be invented has already been invented. Of course taller buildings will be built, trust me in a century buildings will be measured in kilometers and not in hundreds of meters like they are today. Verticality is the future. Verticality is the only solution to land shortage. Land shortage will be a major issue if Earth's population will grow as it does now (and there are no indications that its growth would get lowered in the upcomming decades). I don't know how tall the Hudson Spire will be, but what I'm pretty confident about is that at the end of this century NYC will have several buildings over a kilometer tall
But there is no land shortage.

Advances in technology and city planning will lessen the need for verticality, not heighten it.

Earth's population growth rate has decreased every year since 1963. It's going to level out at 10 billion, at worst, and probably a lot less if developing countries develop quicker because of medicine and social change.

Verticality is a solution to rapid urbanization. There's a limit on the necessity to going tall. Especially considering how far city planning has come in the past fifty years.

All of the world's supertalls over 400m have been built that tall for social and political reasons. Not economic. Dubai is literally a desert. It has vast, unimaginably large areas of nothing surrounding an 800m tall spire. You think that spire was built to combat urban density?

So what I'm saying is: maybe there's an equilibrium that is developing in the world's largest cities. A sweet spot of height and size that maximizes profitability. Maybe that limit is reached at around 400m. Where anything taller is built taller for prestige, not fiscal realities. the overwhelming majority of tall buildings proposed or under construction are much shorter than this, after all.

And maybe people are no longer putting much stock into that prestige. Maybe that extra effort to go beyond 400m and building something 'impressive' is becoming a waste because it is no longer seen as impressive. By the public, or tenants, or anyone else.

I'm not saying this is universally true. But maybe we're in a transitional period.
__________________

autonauta, patrykus liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 09:43 PM   #478
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
But there is no land shortage.

Advances in technology and city planning will lessen the need for verticality, not heighten it.

Earth's population growth rate has decreased every year since 1963. It's going to level out at 10 billion, at worst, and probably a lot less if developing countries develop quicker because of medicine and social change.

Verticality is a solution to rapid urbanization. There's a limit on the necessity to going tall. Especially considering how far city planning has come in the past fifty years.

All of the world's supertalls over 400m have been built that tall for social and political reasons. Not economic. Dubai is literally a desert. It has vast, unimaginably large areas of nothing surrounding an 800m tall spire. You think that spire was built to combat urban density?

So what I'm saying is: maybe there's an equilibrium that is developing in the world's largest cities. A sweet spot of height and size that maximizes profitability. Maybe that limit is reached at around 400m. Where anything taller is built taller for prestige, not fiscal realities. the overwhelming majority of tall buildings proposed or under construction are much shorter than this, after all.

And maybe people are no longer putting much stock into that prestige. Maybe that extra effort to go beyond 400m and building something 'impressive' is becoming a waste because it is no longer seen as impressive. By the public, or tenants, or anyone else.

I'm not saying this is universally true. But maybe we're in a transitional period.

I agree, there will never really be a need for buildings higher than 400 meters anywhere but some of NY's new buildings will be higher than that, not by much but still higher.

With that logic though something like the Chicago Spire doesn't have a chance at all, even though it's much cheaper to build in that city than in NYC, hopefully they can compromise and build something in the 1500 foot range. Same with HY tower.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 09:56 PM   #479
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 SomeKindOfBug View Post
But there is no land shortage.

Advances in technology and city planning will lessen the need for verticality, not heighten it.

Earth's population growth rate has decreased every year since 1963. It's going to level out at 10 billion, at worst, and probably a lot less if developing countries develop quicker because of medicine and social change.

Verticality is a solution to rapid urbanization. There's a limit on the necessity to going tall. Especially considering how far city planning has come in the past fifty years.

All of the world's supertalls over 400m have been built that tall for social and political reasons. Not economic. Dubai is literally a desert. It has vast, unimaginably large areas of nothing surrounding an 800m tall spire. You think that spire was built to combat urban density?

So what I'm saying is: maybe there's an equilibrium that is developing in the world's largest cities. A sweet spot of height and size that maximizes profitability. Maybe that limit is reached at around 400m. Where anything taller is built taller for prestige, not fiscal realities. the overwhelming majority of tall buildings proposed or under construction are much shorter than this, after all.

And maybe people are no longer putting much stock into that prestige. Maybe that extra effort to go beyond 400m and building something 'impressive' is becoming a waste because it is no longer seen as impressive. By the public, or tenants, or anyone else.

I'm not saying this is universally true. But maybe we're in a transitional period.
I'm pretty sure no such transitional period exists. Financial buildings evolve and will evolve just as maximalistic buildings will. Right now 400 meters is a financial building, however in the 70's 200 meters was a financial building, in the 30's 100 meters was a financial building. In a hundred years a kilometer might be a financial building while 3 kilometers will be a maximalistic building. In the 30's they thought no building taller than the Empire State Building will be ever built and look now, ther Kingdom Tower is rising. I think it is rather naive to think that our generation is the last generation that sees progress
__________________
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 April 12th, 2014, 10:18 PM   #480
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I'm pretty sure no such transitional period exists. Financial buildings evolve and will evolve just as maximalistic buildings will. Right now 400 meters is a financial building, however in the 70's 200 meters was a financial building, in the 30's 100 meters was a financial building. In a hundred years a kilometer might be a financial building while 3 kilometers will be a maximalistic building. In the 30's they thought no building taller than the Empire State Building will be ever built and look now, ther Kingdom Tower is rising. I think it is rather naive to think that our generation is the last generation that sees progress

I disagree, there comes a point where we will no longer be able to build much taller, I don't think there will ever be a day where kilometer buildings are all over the place. It's just too costly and takes too many resources. It makes more sense to spread out a little.

Even if you take a look at buildings like Burj Khalifa and Kingdom Tower the unoccupied portions up top are as big as a midsized skyscraper.

I think that at least for quite some time about 2000 feet is the limit for occupied space, anything beyond that will be vanity height.
Jay 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 03:22 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