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 20th, 2014, 06:55 PM   #121
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

You know what is very appealing with this plot? especially for a foreign entity?

This plot is basically gift wrapped. No acquiring of air rights, no assembling of land or any additional approvals necessary other than the DOB to build this "as of right" tower to 1800' if they so choose.

All is needed is for the buyer to draw up a the plans, design, follow the zoning and of course the biggie, the necessary funding. This development would be a piece of cake.

This may not reach 1,800ft but this can certainly reach 1,550 or 1600' just like the Nordstrom tower was originally planned.

The big difference between the Hudson Spire and the Nordstrom is that the Nordstrom faced several a road blocks that may have influenced the shorter height and a few revisions.

Extell had to deal with re-positioning of its tower and it decided to build a cantilever over a landmarked building that would require approval. The Hudson Spire has none of these issues to deal with.

imo, the Hudson spire would have been a perfect job for AS+GG to design a tower the way they would have liked the Nordstrom to have been built. I believe there are many factors the Nordstrom development faced that has influenced their redesigning.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 20th, 2014, 07:00 PM   #122
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
There is no conceivable way that this tower will be less than 300m. No one will sacrifice air rights.
Robert, you know a lot about these things.

Ignoring worst-case scenarios and best-case, what do you honestly think will rise on this plot. Naturally, we'd like to see a megatall in NYC but is this going to be the one?
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2014, 07:09 PM   #123
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
Or pilots could just stop flying their planes at 600m altitude over Manhattan.
I thought only helicopters were allowed to fly so low over Manhattan.
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2014, 07:47 PM   #124
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,669
Likes (Received): 2629

I was making a sarcastic comment on the height limit, because what idiot would fly his plane 600m over Manhattan?
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2014, 08:52 PM   #125
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

I would love to see Nordstrom go at least 1,500 ft. I'm sure there will be two or three other supertalls in the Central Park area but I highly doubt they would be able to go taller than that though may equal or come close. Just the shadow NIMBYs will be out in full force.... the speculated Shvo Tower if ever built certainly won't be allowed to go much higher. The West Side just makes more sense... I hope HY Starts by rethinking the two new towers just outside of the main HY development(50, 55 Hudson Yards I believe) because the point of the West Side is imagination and creativity, there is such an opportunity to go soaring and majestic and letting New York's tall tower freak flag fly you don't want to waste a plot of land to such underwhelming boxiness. It's like a well known musician who suddenly starts playing jarring notes that are all wrong for the composition ...you don't expect it and it's out of place.
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2014, 08:00 PM   #126
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
I was making a sarcastic comment on the height limit, because what idiot would fly his plane 600m over Manhattan?
Exactly!
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2014, 09:56 PM   #127
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 1637

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
I was making a sarcastic comment on the height limit, because what idiot would fly his plane 600m over Manhattan?
It happened in 1981.
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...22081nearcrash
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2014, 11:57 PM   #128
j-biz
rasorio caelum civitatem
 
j-biz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,309
Likes (Received): 2793

Man those articles are spooky. Certainly makes you wonder why they weren't better prepared.
j-biz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 01:25 AM   #129
Chris666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 105
Likes (Received): 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post
If this thing gets built (which I doubt it will), it'd be a HUGE thing for America because I think we all know they can only get so far in global building competition in terms of height. I found one more "rendering", not sure if it's been posted but it's worth a repost:



I think it's going to be at LEAST a good 20 years before a tower rises that's taller than 1 WTC. Whether this building gets built or not will be a really interesting topic. In other words, I don't think this'll get built, but I hope it does.
it's a shame...2000ft Limit for the Country of oppertunity...why not 3000ft oder 4000ft...where is the difference...an arabian Investor pays all...
Chris666 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 01:52 AM   #130
FloripaNation
Não creio no que não vejo
 
FloripaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: País da Musa Paradisiaca
Posts: 16,247
Likes (Received): 11215

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
I was making a sarcastic comment on the height limit, because what idiot would fly his plane 600m over Manhattan?

Aerial margin of safety.
__________________
O Firefox é meu navegador e nada me faltará...
FloripaNation no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:02 AM   #131
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris666 View Post
it's a shame...2000ft Limit for the Country of oppertunity...why not 3000ft oder 4000ft...where is the difference...an arabian Investor pays all...
NYC has the most crowded airspace in the world I believe. There are 3 major airports jammed up together with planes flying up the Hudson and over Manhattan at low altitudes all the time. I doubt FAA would grant permission for a 3000 foot tower even if there was no 2000ft national limit. This isn't the desert or some city where the major airports are miles outside the CBD. It has nothing to do with the USA being the country of opportunity. It has to do with practical realities and the fact that NYC has a ridiculous outdated airport plan that harks back to the earlier part of the 20th century. However, the 2000ft limit should indeed be lifted elsewhere where there is little risk of a collision.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:26 AM   #132
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

London is the busiest airspace in the world by passengers and flight numbers.

Actually by quite a margin. A margin that is increasing over New York (2) and Tokyo (3) every year. And if the Thames Estuary project goes ahead, the gap will jump by around a third.

Also, the 2000ft limit is not a hard limit. The FAA explicitly states that anything over 2000ft can be built if there is public interest and appropriate legal/political/financial shenanigans.

The reason it's not come up is because, well, nothing has come close to 2000ft in America yet.
__________________

Funkyskunk2 liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:27 AM   #133
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Bottom line: If someone has the money to build a tower that is 2000ft tall, they will also have the money to grease the wheels of bureaucracy.
__________________

MarshallKnight liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:32 AM   #134
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

This. If someone's going to build a tower above the ~1400 ft. mark, then money is no object. As we've been discovering with many projects around NYC, that's the point-of-no-return-on-investment so to speak, and anything above that will be a developer cutting into their profits for vanity height. And vanity can definitely be a powerful driver, as we've seen with the types of foreign investors we're hoping for.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:42 AM   #135
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

So many supertalls are in the pipeline in NYC right now, that there's real cachet in being the tallest/biggest/most prestigious. Because tenants are spoiled for choice right now. New York has like a billion square feet of high-end office space going up between now and 2020.

If you're Mega American Corporation X and you want a new headquarters in Manhattan, having the CEO office be the highest office in the whole USA is going to tip the scales.

That's what - I think - makes the Hudson Spire more 'believable' than other pipe dream projects, like the Chicago Spire. I mean, there are more supertalls under construction in NYC then there are supetalls period in my country. The number proposed is frankly absurd. There's a race to the top going on right now and if you're putting billions of dollars on the line, do you really want to end up in ten years' time as the owner of the 'fourteenth tallest building in America'? Who gives a shit about 14th when 1st is just a billion dollars away?
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:44 AM   #136
Filipe_Teixeira
Registered User
 
Filipe_Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Olivais, Lisboa
Posts: 8,301
Likes (Received): 850

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris666 View Post
it's a shame...2000ft Limit for the Country of oppertunity...why not 3000ft oder 4000ft...where is the difference...an arabian Investor pays all...
that would destroy the scale of Ny. and this height it is already too much for that location
__________________
Portuguese SSC member

Lisboa
Filipe_Teixeira no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 02:52 AM   #137
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
If you're Mega American Corporation X and you want a new headquarters in Manhattan, having the CEO office be the highest office in the whole USA is going to tip the scales.
Then why do so many major corporations opt to rent the lowest floor? Because it's cheaper and more convenient. They can pay an extra chunk for naming rights and get the prestige for the company. But CEOs are beholden to shareholders, and if I'm a shareholder, I'm gonna want to know why my CEO paid 50-300% more in order to have the highest offices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
Who gives a shit about 14th when 1st is just a billion dollars away?
The guy who gets to keep his billion dollars.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 03:01 AM   #138
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 710
Likes (Received): 1891

Whatever is built here needs to make economic sense, or at least apparent economic sense to those putting up the money, and to the developers. I don't think an 1,800-foot-tall building at 1.2 million square feet fits that bill, especially given the modest residential component the site can support.
McSky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 03:38 AM   #139
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Then why do so many major corporations opt to rent the lowest floor? Because it's cheaper and more convenient. They can pay an extra chunk for naming rights and get the prestige for the company. But CEOs are beholden to shareholders, and if I'm a shareholder, I'm gonna want to know why my CEO paid 50-300% more in order to have the highest offices.



The guy who gets to keep his billion dollars.
In the world of companies who have the means and motive to build a 600m tower in the middle of the hottest real estate development in the country, a billion dollars is not a lot of money.

Also, companies rent lower floors because they're larger.

And companies that build really tall towers can often not need to rent space in the first place. Because they own the building themselves, a la Sears. No matter how much of a white elephant it becomes.
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 03:54 AM   #140
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4607

Without a doubt whatever gets built there will make economic sense, but let's be honest, in order to get a megatall in NYC, a certain amount of vanity will be part of that decision.
True office and residential are growing taller but there seems to be a limit, for now at least, in terms of how high they're rising, cause much like most developed cities, developers put demand ahead of vanity (look at 30HY and the Nordstrom).
So it will take a developer looking to put his mark on the city to build a megatall, but the good news is, those aren't lacking so the prospect of seeing something really tall here is actually pretty good.
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 11:28 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