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 12th, 2014, 10:43 PM   #481
TechTitan
Registered User
 
TechTitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 22

Boggles my mind people can't see kilometer+ tall buildings in the future. It's a natural progression of society. Guess some diseases will always exist, guess oil will always be our primary source of energy, guess we will never travel to another solar system, guess our life expectancy age has been maxed out, etc etc. I recommend reading up on futuretimeline.net it may better help some of your understandings about what will become feasible in the not too distant future
__________________
Future Timeline

Kanto, wjfox, Manitopiaaa, seb.nl liked this post
TechTitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 13th, 2014, 12:43 AM   #482
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3547

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
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.
You mean today it costs too much and takes too many resources. But tomorrow's limitations might be very far from today's limitations. New materials, stronger materials are being developed as we speak. Take carbon nanotubes for example. They are many times stronger than steel, yet 80 years ago nobody even dreamed of something like them. There is no reason to believe that the speedy development of new technologies and materials, which has been ever increasing in speed since the dawn of the industrial revolution, will suddenly stop next week

As to Patrykus, I mentioned it in another thread a year ago, offices will be extinct 'til the end of this century. With that I agree, however residential buildings will never die. Already today we see that only a very few truly tall buildings are office buildings. In the 70's all of them were office buildings. Today most of them are residential or at least mixed use. We'll see the skyscraper race to continue many centuries into the future, but it will be residential skyscrapers. The future of tall buildings is residential
__________________
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/

citybooster, Manitopiaaa liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 02:00 AM   #483
weidncol
WTC Enthusiast/Researcher
 
weidncol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 4624

Sure, tall residential buildings may be the thing now, but things change over time. It's called stages. Office will soon overtake residential just like residential overtook office. It's an endless cycle.
__________________
#Save2WTC
weidncol no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 03:26 PM   #484
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,048
Likes (Received): 1040

Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTitan View Post
Boggles my mind people can't see kilometer+ tall buildings in the future. It's a natural progression of society. Guess some diseases will always exist, guess oil will always be our primary source of energy, guess we will never travel to another solar system, guess our life expectancy age has been maxed out, etc etc. I recommend reading up on futuretimeline.net it may better help some of your understandings about what will become feasible in the not too distant future
The primitive thinking here is assuming taller = more advanced.

As though the average height of buildings is a linear progression throughout all of history. First pyramids, then cathedrals, then skyscrapers, then arcologies? No.

Truly advanced thinking is seeing cities as interconnected entities rather than a disparate collection of individual buildings.

That doesn't mean kilometer high buildings will never be built. Of course they will. I'm saying, I don't think they'll be necessary. Improvements to public transport, city planning and urban development will make a lot of the problems that skyscrapers are a solution to disappear.

So that means, more and more, a gulf will form between mixed use commercial properties and megatall prestige projects.

I mean, why have one building at 500m when you can have two at 300m for the same price?
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 03:54 PM   #485
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3547

In skyscrapers taller is more advanced. In lowrises it isn't but we are not talking about lowrises here, we are talking about really tall buildings. Obviously height isn't the only factor that advances with new scientific discoveries, however it is the most major and most dominant such factor. And trust me, "mixed use commercial projects" will too become taller and taller, just as they did since the dawn of skyscrapers on the end of the 19th century.

Quote:
I mean, why have one building at 500m when you can have two at 300m for the same price?
And for one at 500m you can have 500 at 3m, yet we still see tall buildings, so apparently this isn't the full equation. If this would be the full equation we'd have no building over 60 meters today. Again I will repeat the question, for nearly 150 years both maximalist and economic tall buildings have become steadily taller and taller, why should this long lasting trend suddenly end this year?
__________________
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/

citybooster liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 08:07 PM   #486
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

And what the others give are pooh poohs that we'd expect from NIMBYS, not forward thinkers. No, I don't want a whole range of 2,000 footers for New York... economics and common sense must take up some part of the equation. But there is a place for strategic vision, and the thought of some buildings exceeding 1,500 ft in the area AND making total sense aren't mutually exclusive. We started thethread with excitement, now too many voices are saying what naysayers in the past have said... we can't do this, we can't do that, it's just not practical... yet we're supposed to admire the dreamers and doers here!
__________________

Kanto liked this post
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2014, 01:00 AM   #487
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

The best solution to great population density in a relatively limited space is to build up commercially or residentially, or mixed. Greater access to mass transit, less automobiles on the road. I think the heights of Dubai and other developing nations aren't needed here but the idea of some megatalls 1,500-2,000 ft may actually be an integrated part of a city development like New York City.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2014, 01:45 PM   #488
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 69,232
Likes (Received): 29356

I agree.It may eventually happen, but because of demand, nothing else
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2014, 08:49 PM   #489
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Offereins View Post
I agree.It may eventually happen, but because of demand, nothing else
Maybe... I would say we would see bigger buildings spreading to the outer boroughs before that happened though.

I do see the Asian building boom cooling down though in the near future, it's just crazy how many buildings are being put up over there! It would seem impossible to keep that up.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2014, 02:05 AM   #490
Spocket
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 197
Likes (Received): 91

Taller ? Maybe but those will always be the outliers and not the norm.

More tall buildings ? Definitely. It is pretty much an absolute certainty that future cities in much of the world won't even allow anything under 5 floors to be built.

I live in China and except for the very richest there are no houses built within cities. This may not be a surprise to anybody but if the argument is that there's actually plenty of room all over the place then yes, that's true but how many people would live in Antarctica even if they could ?

A crowd attracts a crowd and in plenty of countries the only way to keep the entire country from being paved over is to dictate that all housing be highrise. Simply saying that there's plenty of room makes a few presumptions that don't actually pan out once you explore them.
Cities exist where they do because there's some resource that facilitates their expansion and wealth generation. New Yorkers can't commute from Kansas to Manhattan every day anyway. Nevertheless, our cities lie atop places that already have some intrinsic value so when they expand , they expand into and eventually cover those areas. We don't want L.A. to cover every square inch of farmland in southern California because the land is valuable for other reasons. It's more valuable for farming (if not now, it will be in the near future) than it is for residential expansion. We can build anywhere but when we can't the solution is to build up.

If cities built of nothing but kilometer tall skyscrapers were economically viable then you can rest assured that that's exactly what we'd have in many places around the world. India , for example, could return the countryside to a more natural state if their cities were condensed into areas a fraction of their current size. Same for China and any other densely populated country.

We simply can't predict the future. Assuming certain trends continue, we'll hit a population plateau by around 2100 but that's a long way off.
__________________

Ivanator liked this post
Spocket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2014, 10:34 AM   #491
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

I think political factors will play a major role in determining how high towers will be built in the future more than basic economic demand, supply, costs, etc. I.e, the fashion for living in dense cities might give way to a different trend.

Last edited by aquablue; April 20th, 2014 at 11:25 AM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2014, 12:16 AM   #492
wilfred267
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 140
Likes (Received): 72

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
I think political factors will play a major role in determining how high towers will be built in the future more than basic economic demand, supply, costs, etc. I.e, the fashion for living in dense cities might give way to a different trend.
Only if the Gale Brewers start multiplying.
.
wilfred267 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 05:30 AM   #493
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6489

Breaking News!! Tishman buys both sites to build a 2.8 msf tower!!!

Tishman Speyer Buys Manhattan Site for $438 Million
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-h...9/SS-2-519687/


Tishman Speyer has paid $438 million for a development site on Manhattan’s far West Side in the latest sign of a land rush that has pushed the value of New York properties into the stratosphere.

The firm, controlled by the father-and-son team of Jerry and Rob Speyer, plans to build a 2.8-million-square-foot office tower on the site, which occupies a full block near several other huge projects that are under way.

“We think we’re entering the sweet spot of office development in New York,” said Rob Speyer.

The site—on 10th Ave. between West 34th St. and West 35th St.—consists of two separate parcels and currently is populated by parking lots and older, low-rise buildings. One parcel was owned by Sherwood Equities, the other by New York’s Rosenthal family.

The deal, which closed Tuesday, is the most significant New York transaction by Tishman Speyer since the economic downturn. During the recovery the firm has been investing in California and Chicago in the U.S., and in Europe, Brazil and China.

Tishman Speyer is joining a group of developers who believe the New York office market is turning a corner after experiencing relatively slow growth in rents and occupancies during the recovery. About 3.6 million square feet of new office space was added 2013 compared with zero in 2012, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield.

Over the next five years, builders are expected to add 17.2 million square feet. “New York needs more office space,” Rob Speyer said. “There’s a scarcity of large blocks of space that’s going to be more pronounced in years ahead.”

But debt financing for new development is still difficult to obtain from conventional sources, especially for so-called “speculative” buildings that aren’t preleased. Rob Speyer said that Tishman Speyer plans to find a major tenant before it starts building.

This push to build new office space has helped drive up land values. Sherwood bought its parcel for $8 million in 1986, and has invested only a few hundred thousand dollars in the properties since then, according to Jeffrey Katz, Sherwood’s president.

Tishman Speyer is paying $200 million for that property. “This is one of the hottest markets for land I can remember. I’ve never seen an acceleration of price so fast,” Mr. Katz said.

Manhattan’s far West Side is especially hot right now because of the massive Hudson Yards development and the city’s extension of the No. 7 subway line, which is scheduled to open in the neighborhood this year.

Related Cos.’ $15 billion Hudson Yards project is beginning to take shape just south of the Tishman Speyer site. Construction of the first tower, which is being anchored by Coach Inc., is under way and scheduled to be completed in 2015. Earlier this year, Time Warner Inc. announced plans to move its headquarters to Hudson Yards.

Also nearby, Brookfield Properties has plans for $4.5 billion worth of development, including two office buildings, an apartment building and parks.

In addition, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s real-estate company late last year paid $88 million for a vacant property in the Hudson Yards area. And in September, Sherwood and a partner sold a development site at 10th Ave. and West 30th St. for $167 million, to developer Frank McCourt, who is planning a mixed-use tower. The price was three times what they paid for the site in 2011.

Tishman Speyer has considered building in the area before. In 2008, the firm struck a deal with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to buy the 26-acre Hudson Yards site. But the deal fell apart as the economy weakened. Related was selected as the project’s developer later that year.
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 05:33 AM   #494
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,350
Likes (Received): 3597

Yesssssssssss!
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 05:59 AM   #495
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,546
Likes (Received): 4655

Getting closer to reality. Now let's see what Tishman does with the site.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 06:13 AM   #496
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

Hudson Spire is now within reach... one major tenant will get financing rolling and at 2.8 mil square feet in one massive tower 1,800ft is much more looking like a reality... not just a speculative vision!
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 10:01 AM   #497
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 568

Quote:
Originally Posted by jconyc View Post
Simply not true...do some research before making statements of fact.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/...y/?mod=WSJBlog
Lol, coming from the guy citing an inherently flawed study... maybe you should read into stuff before you throw it around.
One comment on the article:
Quote:
His conclusion is half-right but misleadingly optimistic in a way that seems as if he’s defending the rich. There are a number of things wrong with this article from an economists’ perspective, including the measurements used to estimate inherited wealth and the presentation of statistics.
Personal experience polls are scientifically worthless.

It’s not the percentage of wealth inherited that determines how “rich” a person is, but how much actual money is inherited because investment opportunities multiply as inheritance increases.

The author points out that the number of rich people are growing… but as numerous politicians have pointed out, the rich aren't just getting richer, the middle class are becoming poorer. There is a division between the top of the middle class where some are seeing wealth accumulation and becoming rich, and the others are equally being drained of wealth and becoming poorer middle class. The money for the rich doesn't just appear out of thin air, someone has to work for it and someone has to lose it for them to gain it.

So, this guy didn't lie, and his conclusions aren't wrong, they’re out of context and pretty worthless at describing the actual mechanics of inheritance and its effect on wealth generation.
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 03:49 PM   #498
solgoldberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Eastern end of eLIRR
Posts: 815
Likes (Received): 866

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
Lol, coming from the guy citing an inherently flawed study... maybe you should read into stuff before you throw it around.
One comment on the article:
Yeah.
Staying NYC relevant I want to say that I enjoyed my one visit to the "Occupy Wall Street" encampment in 2011. I drove in with a good friend from cNYC college daze way back when.
It was a beautiful early fall day and we found parking easily near City Hall.

solgoldberg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 04:35 PM   #499
j-biz
rasorio caelum civitatem
 
j-biz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 2801

Wow, that was lightning fast! Tishman Speyer wants back in the game.

I will say, a small little voice is starting to whisper in the back of my mind bubble, bubble, bubble.....
j-biz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2014, 07:15 PM   #500
solgoldberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Eastern end of eLIRR
Posts: 815
Likes (Received): 866

Quote:
Originally Posted by j-biz View Post
Wow, that was lightning fast! Tishman Speyer wants back in the game.

I will say, a small little voice is starting to whisper in the back of my mind bubble, bubble, bubble.....
Yep.

It's been in the back of mind for a while, but I've also lived in LA, seen them build suburbs in the high desert of Palmdale, CA, seen them build suburbs in the desert of Las Vegas, etc., etc...
solgoldberg 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 02:29 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