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

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» 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 August 30th, 2011, 07:31 PM   #501
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Well, I like them. They are far from being perfect but are still better than most skyscrapers we see rise nowadays
__________________
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

Sponsored Links
Old August 30th, 2011, 07:56 PM   #502
seb.nl
Registered User
 
seb.nl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eindhoven
Posts: 2,378
Likes (Received): 1280

They look like mass-studies in those renders...
seb.nl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 08:41 PM   #503
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Damn, those are some lame designs. NYC can do better. A lot better.

Especially at such a prominent site.
NYC is doing nothing. These buildings are developed by a private enterprise and are being built according to what the market can bear, not to make an aesthetic statement or a prestige play. This is a risky new area and the designs are going to be conservative because of price and location concerns. The city really has no further say in this matter. Again, don't blame the city, blame the business men who make this happen. To be honest, they are a lot more interesting than the stuff going up in Canary Warf or many German ugly PoMo scrapers.

Did you really think that NYC developers would be able to somehow pull off an extremely beautiful and expensive tower that would be cost effective, suit stingy tenants in a dicey economic cycle, and do all this in a frontier area far outside the prime business locations that does not even have a subway stop yet? Remember, these towers are the catalyst towers for a new area. High end residents and luxury buyers are hardly going to choose here over Park Avenue or Central Park anytime soon. Without such a location pull that would be sure to attract luxury buyers, a luxury landmark tower is not going to be a financially sound bet right now. That is why I'm sure these towers are no big deal. Also, this is NYC, where boxy architecture is the norm anyway. I don't see why you are so surprised or shocked.

Yet, future towers may be more interesting once the area get's more established as a destination.

Last edited by aquablue; August 30th, 2011 at 08:53 PM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 08:41 PM   #504
bennyboo
Registered User
 
bennyboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle
Posts: 503
Likes (Received): 71

Im ok with them not looking that great because brookfield properties will be the center of attention anyways
bennyboo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 08:56 PM   #505
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by bennyboo View Post
Im ok with them not looking that great because brookfield properties will be the center of attention anyways
Of course, they have a much more secure selling point right now with access to Penn Station in the future directly from those buildings. I'd say that is the reason why those towers are more impressive than the mish-mash designs on the yards.

I'd say the Penn Station area will become the next real office hub in Manhattan, even more so than the yards. I see it as the perfect location to build tall office towers due to the rail links and lack of residents.

Last edited by aquablue; August 30th, 2011 at 09:01 PM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011, 12:46 AM   #506
Boba Fett22
we need corporation tax
 
Boba Fett22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 1,694
Likes (Received): 510

Wow those are some great looking designs.

From what I've seen of it I like NYC's architecture. Hopefully I won't be disappointed with the rest of it when I visit.
__________________
Northern Ireland must be granted special status after the UK leaves the EU.
Boba Fett22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011, 04:45 AM   #507
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
NYC is doing nothing. These buildings are developed by a private enterprise and are being built according to what the market can bear, not to make an aesthetic statement or a prestige play. This is a risky new area and the designs are going to be conservative because of price and location concerns. The city really has no further say in this matter. Again, don't blame the city, blame the business men who make this happen. To be honest, they are a lot more interesting than the stuff going up in Canary Warf or many German ugly PoMo scrapers.

Did you really think that NYC developers would be able to somehow pull off an extremely beautiful and expensive tower that would be cost effective, suit stingy tenants in a dicey economic cycle, and do all this in a frontier area far outside the prime business locations that does not even have a subway stop yet? Remember, these towers are the catalyst towers for a new area. High end residents and luxury buyers are hardly going to choose here over Park Avenue or Central Park anytime soon. Without such a location pull that would be sure to attract luxury buyers, a luxury landmark tower is not going to be a financially sound bet right now. That is why I'm sure these towers are no big deal. Also, this is NYC, where boxy architecture is the norm anyway. I don't see why you are so surprised or shocked.

Yet, future towers may be more interesting once the area get's more established as a destination.
It's being developed by the New York City Department of City Planning and Metropolitan Transportation Authority. I wouldn't call that a private enterprise.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011, 06:32 AM   #508
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

No it's not. The developers are Related, they are the ones who are actually building it.

The MTA are the ones who physically own the Hudson Yards. Their only connection to this is that they're basically renting it to Related. They signed a 99 year lease with Related, and they along with the city extended the 7 train which have really sparked this development.

The New York City Department of City Planning are in charge of zoning. They changed the zoning which has allowed these large buildings to be built.

Related are the ones who are in charge of building everything in the Hudson Yards. Since they signed their lease with the MTA, they can build whatever they want and the MTA or the Dep of City Planning can't do anything about it.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011, 08:16 PM   #509
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

it's like the NYNJPA and Silverstien. The MTA is still the landlord and Related is developing the site for them.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2011, 12:59 AM   #510
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

It's not though. In the case of the WTC, the Port Authority is actually building the office buildings and transportation hub. They've even had to raise tolls on bridges and tunnels because of cost overruns.

Here the MTA has nothing to do with the building. There is no public money being used to build this. Even Related is paying for the platforms.

The only similarity is that public entities own the land, MTA owns th Hudson yards but essentially sold the development rights to Related, while the Port Authority owns the WTC. Outside of that not much else in common.

In any case, I went by the other day but the wooden fence around the site is like 8 feet tall so I can't add to the info we have of rebar being delivered.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2011, 01:57 AM   #511
scooterboy
Registered User
 
scooterboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Damn, those are some lame designs. NYC can do better. A lot better.

Especially at such a prominent site.
With you on that,the ESB is such an iconic symbol,if your going to build something so prominitely blockingit at least give it some thought and make it something to be proud of in 80+ yrs time,makes me think back to the Pan Am building,boring blocks
scooterboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011, 11:11 AM   #512
Bricken Ridge
Registered User
 
Bricken Ridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 268
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Did you really think that NYC developers would be able to somehow pull off an extremely beautiful and expensive tower that would be cost effective, suit stingy tenants in a dicey economic cycle, and do all this in a frontier area far outside the prime business locations that does not even have a subway stop yet? Remember, these towers are the catalyst towers for a new area. High end residents and luxury buyers are hardly going to choose here over Park Avenue or Central Park anytime soon. Without such a location pull that would be sure to attract luxury buyers, a luxury landmark tower is not going to be a financially sound bet right now. That is why I'm sure these towers are no big deal. Also, this is NYC, where boxy architecture is the norm anyway. I don't see why you are so surprised or shocked.


i'll be stingy too if the address does not sound right.
Bricken Ridge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011, 08:04 PM   #513
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

As set forth in the following article, the shorter, south tower will be 950 feet tall, and therefore, the taller north tower should be at least 1,250 feet tall based upon mere visual appraisal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...west-side.html


Quote:
Brookfield’s project, named Manhattan West, calls for two towers of 2 million square feet each and a third of 1.2 million square feet, plus as much as 200,000 square feet of retail space. Related, developer of the Time Warner Center, is planning almost 13 million square feet of construction, including about 6 million square feet of offices, at its 26-acre (11-hectare) Hudson Yards site, a half-block west of Brookfield’s trench.

Both companies aim to start site preparation next year, and say they’ll have their first buildings completed in 2015. They are competing in the same market of tenants, including media, fashion and financial-services firms, offering state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly office space on an island where more than 60 percent of the stock is more than 50 years old.

Accelerating the construction of the deck should help Brookfield compete for tenants with Related, Harbert said.

Part of Related’s site is on “terra firma” -- ordinary land that needs no platform -- on the southeast corner along 10th Avenue, Joanna Rose, a company spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. It plans a 950-foot (290-meter) skyscraper of 1.7 million square feet at that location.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011, 10:47 PM   #514
casinoland
Registered User
 
casinoland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: somewhere up north
Posts: 106
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
does not even have a subway stop yet
uh... you're kidding, right?
casinoland no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011, 11:03 PM   #515
Im Using A Computer
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 260
Likes (Received): 14

Well thats sort of dissapointing. Only going to be 1 supertall at the yards.
Im Using A Computer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2011, 03:56 AM   #516
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

We don't know that yet. Only two design have been release.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2011, 04:03 AM   #517
Im Using A Computer
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 260
Likes (Received): 14

I doubt any of the other towers of this complex will reach or exceed 300 meters. 950 feet is still a respectable height though.
Im Using A Computer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2011, 09:31 AM   #518
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

950 feet is a waste of time and useful space. This is suppose to be the last undeveloped part of Manhattan. And they want to waste bullshit on it.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2011, 09:41 AM   #519
bennyboo
Registered User
 
bennyboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle
Posts: 503
Likes (Received): 71

just because its the last undeveloped area doesn't automatically mean it HAS to be a supertall....im perfectly fine with it being that tall its still WAY impacting on the skyline compared to most of new yorks buildings
bennyboo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2011, 09:48 AM   #520
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

The point was to create maximum office space or at less that was the idea. I'm fine with one supertall as long as it's not ugly.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
30 hudson yards, hudson yards, manhattan tower, north tower, supertall, west 33rd street

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 12:02 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