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 November 29th, 2016, 12:27 AM   #5501
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

It looks better and better with every picture posted. The Vessel will add so much to the whole space. Magnificent urbanism.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 29th, 2016, 01:58 AM   #5502
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,664
Likes (Received): 2622

Just wish there was a really tall signature tower, but people in this forum have been saying this a million times. What we get is already amazing and no one should complain. And I don't complain, I just wish.
__________________

Architecture lover liked this post
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2016, 10:47 AM   #5503
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,667
Likes (Received): 13250


@franksly67
potipoti está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 12:42 AM   #5504
boss-ton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 370
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
Just wish there was a really tall signature tower, but people in this forum have been saying this a million times. What we get is already amazing and no one should complain. And I don't complain, I just wish.
This isnt going to be a really tall signature tower?



This tower is almost 1300 ft, thats as tall as the twin towers roofs were.
__________________
boss-ton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 01:29 AM   #5505
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,664
Likes (Received): 2622

And the twin towers were really tall decades ago. And if you lived under a rock since then you might still think they are.

Try something like at least 450-500m for something that would qualify as a really tall signature tower nowadays.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 02:03 AM   #5506
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Well, those towers were 415/417 metres so that's not a great deal different than 450m especially when you consider they were designed and built close to half a century ago.

432 Park Ave., which would surely qualify as a signature tower in recent NYC development, is just 426m.

And of course, height is not the end all of such determinations. The fact that there were two Trade Center towers, equally massive, 207 feet on each side, an acre of area per floor, well, that's impressive and of a signature nature even when compared to much taller, more modern towers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
And the twin towers were really tall decades ago. And if you lived under a rock since then you might still think they are.

Try something like at least 450-500m for something that would qualify as a really tall signature tower nowadays.

Last edited by Nuwanda; November 30th, 2016 at 02:10 AM.
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 04:53 AM   #5507
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

Same thing here with shape, scope, and placement creating the iconic status that might otherwise be reserved solely for height.
__________________

cnbnca liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 05:03 AM   #5508
generalscarr
Registered User
 
generalscarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 425

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
It's part of the 50 Hudson Yards assemblage. It'll get demolished when Related secures an anchor tenant. Based on recent reports, it sounds like a deal with Blackrock will be announced shortly, so unless that falls through, we shouldn't be waiting long.

Correct. That small walkup has a Hudson Yards showroom on the ground floor so it's def theirs already.
generalscarr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 05:19 AM   #5509
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,343
Likes (Received): 3590

Oh I had no idea. Has anyone posted photos from inside?
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 11:50 AM   #5510
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

This building is like 30 Rockefeller Center, it won't be the tallest in the city, but it does stand out in it's own area and it will have an observation deck with magnificent views.
(oh and btw both are 5th tallest)
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 09:52 PM   #5511
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

Guys and girls what droneriot tries to say is that New York, or H - Yards need a megatall structure. It does not mean that he complains about the developments, they all look great like he said himself, he only wishes to see something that will truly stand out. In such magnificent surrounding only a megatall could truly stand out, that's all.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 10:14 PM   #5512
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1504

And we're showing why you don't need a megatall to stand out. The buildings as they are will do just fine.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 07:20 AM   #5513
t94
Registered User
 
t94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 844

I'm not a developer by any means, so I can only speculate, but I was under the impression one of the reasons for office buildings capping at a relatively uninspiring 700-800 feet was due to the inefficiency of elevators and their consumption of floor space as more elevators are required for going higher. This being one of the reasons the Midtown skyline "plateaus" at the aforementioned 700-800 foot height due to economics.

The reason Hudson Yards and its subsequent buildings can dominate height wise is due to the large space provided by the redeveloped yards, something the blocks on the cramped NYC grid can't allow. Even then, contemporary buildings like Hudson Yards and Bank of America Tower still receive unorthodox height bonuses due to tall crowns that are absent from their 20th century counterparts. Same goes for One Vanderbilt, which is demolishing an entire city block (albeit small one) to make way for a skyline dominating tower, which, as I said before, is aided by a taller crown and a relatively low floor count for its height (less people per 100 feet of height). These buildings employ thousands of workers and the elevators can only do so much in a given space. Note that taller office buildings consume more square area at its base than smaller office buildings of prewar New York. This is the reason China can build taller office buildings due to space availability not present in Manhattan.

This is the reason residential towers are the next array of towers that will dominate the skyline, due to them containing far less people in them, enabling fewer elevators that consume floor space.

For NYC to construct an utterly dominating office structure that competes with Asiatic skyscrapers, it would require a large amount of land space or some unforeseen breakthrough in elevator technology that allows them to be more efficient. (We already have express elevators and double deck elevators.)

Again, I'm not a developer, and am just speculating out of my ass, so take everything as just that: speculation.
__________________

cnbnca, Meehoowk666, afrmx liked this post
t94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 09:03 AM   #5514
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

This is an interesting subject. Thanks for your comments.

The residential angle is one I hadn't considered but it makes sense that with very few people living on each floor the transport requirements are vastly reduced, almost negligible.

Is there an elevator thread that discusses these things?

I suspect advances in lift speed and fuzzy logic have solved some problems, too. The old WTC employed double deckers which is where I first read about them. Those towers had the sky lobbies. How many other buildings do? There must be some subtle and novel solutions.

The older yet taller towers like the ESB must feel significant pressure at times. This must overflow into stair capacity, safety, etc. I note comments elsewhere about LA towers being required to have helipads for evacuation and therefore being flat topped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t94 View Post
I'm not a developer by any means, so I can only speculate, but I was under the impression one of the reasons for office buildings capping at a relatively uninspiring 700-800 feet was due to the inefficiency of elevators and their consumption of floor space as more elevators are required for going higher. This being one of the reasons the Midtown skyline "plateaus" at the aforementioned 700-800 foot height due to economics.

The reason Hudson Yards and its subsequent buildings can dominate height wise is due to the large space provided by the redeveloped yards, something the blocks on the cramped NYC grid can't allow. Even then, contemporary buildings like Hudson Yards and Bank of America Tower still receive unorthodox height bonuses due to tall crowns that are absent from their 20th century counterparts. Same goes for One Vanderbilt, which is demolishing an entire city block (albeit small one) to make way for a skyline dominating tower, which, as I said before, is aided by a taller crown and a relatively low floor count for its height (less people per 100 feet of height). These buildings employ thousands of workers and the elevators can only do so much in a given space. Note that taller office buildings consume more square area at its base than smaller office buildings of prewar New York. This is the reason China can build taller office buildings due to space availability not present in Manhattan.

This is the reason residential towers are the next array of towers that will dominate the skyline, due to them containing far less people in them, enabling fewer elevators that consume floor space.

For NYC to construct an utterly dominating office structure that competes with Asiatic skyscrapers, it would require a large amount of land space or some unforeseen breakthrough in elevator technology that allows them to be more efficient. (We already have express elevators and double deck elevators.)

Again, I'm not a developer, and am just speculating out of my ass, so take everything as just that: speculation.
__________________

Meehoowk666 liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 04:41 PM   #5515
Meehoowk666
Registered User
 
Meehoowk666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: A-Town
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
This is an interesting subject. Thanks for your comments.

The residential angle is one I hadn't considered but it makes sense that with very few people living on each floor the transport requirements are vastly reduced, almost negligible.

Is there an elevator thread that discusses these things?

I suspect advances in lift speed and fuzzy logic have solved some problems, too. The old WTC employed double deckers which is where I first read about them. Those towers had the sky lobbies. How many other buildings do? There must be some subtle and novel solutions.

The older yet taller towers like the ESB must feel significant pressure at times. This must overflow into stair capacity, safety, etc. I note comments elsewhere about LA towers being required to have helipads for evacuation and therefore being flat topped.
the whole complexity and logistics that come with such tall buildins always keep me interested in the aspect ratio of width and height and the ground floor area provided, especially in supertalls and megatalls (and lower skyscrapers too); for exampe willis tower, being an office focused structure, provides huge amounts of space, even cutting off so many possible floors by its tapering, due to structural and logistical limits of the internal shafts - the compensation is quite efficient, since the original company had enough money to buy such a big fooprint and people also prefer offices, that don't need to get too long to, also in an emergency your chance of getting out (quicker) is higher
Meehoowk666 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2016, 01:09 AM   #5516
Luca9A8M
Registered User
 
Luca9A8M's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,084
Likes (Received): 6899

2 December, 2016


Hudson Yards by tectonic Photo, on Flickr
__________________
New York City Subway: 25 services, 380 km, 425 stations.
Single services: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S A B C D E F G J L M N Q R S S W Z
Luca9A8M está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2016, 01:14 AM   #5517
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

What make/model is that tiny NYPD car? Are they used for parking enforcement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca9A8M View Post
2 December, 2016


Hudson Yards by tectonic Photo, on Flickr
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2016, 01:35 AM   #5518
CCs77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 2436

The thing of the elevators is not a very determining factor, it is more of other economic reasons.

In a given plot of land, you are only allowed to build a certain amount of space, related to the size of the plot itself. that is the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) which indicates the amount of usable buildable area you can build in your plot (that excludes elevators shaft, mechanichal, rooms, parking and other uses)

So if you have a 2000 sq meter plot, with a 10FAR, you can build a total of 20000 sq meters. That mean you could build for example a 20 story building, with each floor containing 1000 sq meters of usable space on each floor, or a 40 story building, with 500 sq meters of buildable space on each floor.

Office towers usually have larger plates than residential, so a office tower may have less, but larger floors, in the same plot, than a residential one.

Also, there is like some ideal size of floors for office buildings, if you make them so small they wouldn't be very functional.

Then you have construction costs, building a tower of 30000 sq meters distributed in 30 floors would be less than the cost of another building, with the same 30000 sq meters but in 40 floors (with smaller floors) so the developer would prefer to build the shorter one.

Also you have the relatively small plots in NYC, although with a high FAR, limit the amount of buildable space thus, the size of the building.

When you combine that, the better building, for economic reasons, for the developers, is that 700 ish feet office tower, which with some conditions could be stretched to 1000-1100 feet.

There are other things. Not only a residential tower may have more floors than an office tower, with the same total sq footage, but you can sell or rent the units at the upper floors at a significant higher price than the ones of the lower ones. So, even if the cost of the building is greater, that would be covered by the higher prices in upper floors. In ofice buildings, the tenants wouldn't be willing to pay a significant higher rent just to have views, and the developer would not be willing to build a taller, more costly and maybe less efficient building, just for the seek of it.

That is why you see those tall residential towers, you can sell the higher units at a premium, thing you can't do with office space.

There are two exceptions of office towers in Manhattan greatly exceeding that 1000 ft mark, This one, 30HY and Vanderbilt Tower. But notice that those two have a special feature that makes the devoloper willing to make them taller: both have observation decks. Those decks are expecting to produce a significant amount of money, making economically feasible to build the buildings that hold them taller.
CCs77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2016, 01:57 AM   #5519
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

The core size of a building must certainly be one determining factor. Look at the plans of some of these buildings with a substantial percentage of the floor area being taken up with elevators. It's obvious that the less floor area has to be devoted to services, the more viable a building will be since you can lease more area.

Plot/height ratios are obviously always in tension with other factors.

The point about residential buildings needing fewer elevators is certainly a determining factor since if the same building, say 432 Park Ave., was an office building the elevator capacity would not be enough for the number of people working per floor. Those floors with four residential units on them might have only 4 people per unit = 16 total living on each floor. You could easily triple or quadruple that if it was an office building and therefore it might not be viable since the elevator capacity would need to increase thereby reducing the rentable floor area.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
The thing of the elevators is not a very determining factor, it is more of other economic reasons.

In a given plot of land, you are only allowed to build a certain amount of space, related to the size of the plot itself. that is the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) which indicates the amount of usable buildable area you can build in your plot (that excludes elevators shaft, mechanichal, rooms, parking and other uses)

So if you have a 2000 sq meter plot, with a 10FAR, you can build a total of 20000 sq meters. That mean you could build for example a 20 story building, with each floor containing 1000 sq meters of usable space on each floor, or a 40 story building, with 500 sq meters of buildable space on each floor.

Office towers usually have larger plates than residential, so a office tower may have less, but larger floors, in the same plot, than a residential one.

Also, there is like some ideal size of floors for office buildings, if you make them so small they wouldn't be very functional.

Then you have construction costs, building a tower of 30000 sq meters distributed in 30 floors would be less than the cost of another building, with the same 30000 sq meters but in 40 floors (with smaller floors) so the developer would prefer to build the shorter one.

Also you have the relatively small plots in NYC, although with a high FAR, limit the amount of buildable space thus, the size of the building.

When you combine that, the better building, for economic reasons, for the developers, is that 700 ish feet office tower, which with some conditions could be stretched to 1000-1100 feet.

There are other things. Not only a residential tower may have more floors than an office tower, with the same total sq footage, but you can sell or rent the units at the upper floors at a significant higher price than the ones of the lower ones. So, even if the cost of the building is greater, that would be covered by the higher prices in upper floors. In ofice buildings, the tenants wouldn't be willing to pay a significant higher rent just to have views, and the developer would not be willing to build a taller, more costly and maybe less efficient building, just for the seek of it.

That is why you see those tall residential towers, you can sell the higher units at a premium, thing you can't do with office space.

There are two exceptions of office towers in Manhattan greatly exceeding that 1000 ft mark, This one, 30HY and Vanderbilt Tower. But notice that those two have a special feature that makes the devoloper willing to make them taller: both have observation decks. Those decks are expecting to produce a significant amount of money, making economically feasible to build the buildings that hold them taller.
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2016, 02:17 AM   #5520
webeagle12
Registered User
 
webeagle12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Albany
Posts: 1,738
Likes (Received): 415

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
What make/model is that tiny NYPD car? Are they used for parking enforcement?
smart car. That thing is cute
webeagle12 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 03:06 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