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 December 1st, 2011, 11:08 PM   #761
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
NY will never have the worlds tallest building, but it could have the most supertalls in one place which is equally if not more impressive... I say that because, if the Jeddah tower gets built, it will be 3300 feet tall, NY will never build half that high... but maybe itll build so many 1000-1300 footers that it will be more impressive that a city with one 3000 footer
I agree. Although buildings at the Yards have air rights for towers in the 450m range, none have air rights for a 900m tower, as of right. If any developer sought to transfer air rights from contiguous parcels to build a 900m tower, such a proposal would be DOA.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 2nd, 2011, 10:41 AM   #762
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
I agree. Although buildings at the Yards have air rights for towers in the 450m range, none have air rights for a 900m tower, as of right. If any developer sought to transfer air rights from contiguous parcels to build a 900m tower, such a proposal would be DOA.
what's DOA?

anyway that would be cool if a 450+ meter tower could end up on the west side
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 01:24 PM   #763
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,281
Likes (Received): 57998

Dead or alive?
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 03:01 PM   #764
isdmd10
Registered User
 
isdmd10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 132
Likes (Received): 4

Dead on arrival
isdmd10 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 07:09 PM   #765
Dirty new yorker
Registered User
 
Dirty new yorker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 576
Likes (Received): 25

To say that NYC will NEVER have another tallest is too hard to say.
The only never we can be sure of is we'll never know what the future will bring.
Hudson Yards may not be worlds tallests, but theyll definitely give the city a new dimension. And even more wonderous skyscrapers to marvel at.
Cant wait to hear more on this.
__________________
24/7 NY state of mind
Dirty new yorker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 08:22 PM   #766
fimiak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 181
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty new yorker View Post
To say that NYC will NEVER have another tallest is too hard to say.
The only never we can be sure of is we'll never know what the future will bring.
Hudson Yards may not be worlds tallests, but theyll definitely give the city a new dimension. And even more wonderous skyscrapers to marvel at.
Cant wait to hear more on this.

Sorry but NYC will never build as high as the Burj Dubai. New York is about money, not power, and therefore will never have the reason to waste so much money on such a profit losing venture. If you think I am wrong, look at the MoMA tower, cut from 1250 feet down to 1050 feet. That statement alone tells you the mindset of the average NYC NIMBY.
fimiak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 10:17 PM   #767
Dirty new yorker
Registered User
 
Dirty new yorker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 576
Likes (Received): 25

I understand what your saying. I live and work right here in the city, i know lots about the restrictions and zoning laws of the city, and i understand corporations and developers intentions when they build a headquarters in downtown manhattan. Height on a scale of world records seems out of sight right now. But thats the beauty of the future, its nearly impossible to say where the city will be in 50 or for that matter 400 years. Just trying to seem optimistic.
But for the sake of the thread we're on, i have to say the renders of hudson yards look brilliant, and hopefully it adds a lot to the magnificant skyline once its built whether its 350 meters or 1000
__________________
24/7 NY state of mind
Dirty new yorker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2011, 11:33 PM   #768
Rey73
Registered User
 
Rey73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 24
Likes (Received): 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
what's DOA?

anyway that would be cool if a 450+ meter tower could end up on the west side
And a 2000/2100 ft tower like Chicago Spire version B, 7 South Dearborn, Miglin Beitler Skyneedle, Think Great Room tower for WTC or Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates 2000 ft tower (WTC), it is possible on west side?

Think Great Room 2100 ft tower
http://www.pbase.com/image/12740482

Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates 2000 ft tower
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3430
Rey73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 05:02 AM   #769
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

While I personally don't believe NY will reclaim the tallest at any point in our lifetimes, there's no way we can predict the future. But we must consider this: the people of New York aren't likely to pull a Dubai. That is to say, they likely aren't going to let a 900m tower go up without first conquering the territories of 600m, 700m and 800m.

We must acknowledge and respect the other buildings. I'm all up for building 900m towers in Midtown, but it would be disrespectful to just build something two or three times taller then the rest out of nowhere, not to mention, it'd just ruin the skyline (in my opinion).

So maybe in a hundred years, the Asian supertall boom will end and another American supertall boom, this one much larger and taller then the last will start again. We won't know until it happens.
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 06:39 AM   #770
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

I don't know why we're talking about 100+ years down the future, none of us will even be alive to see it.

If it happens within the next few decades we can enjoy it ourselves.

However, NYC has a long way to go before that, seeing on how it can hardly get a 400 meter building up, how can we even possibly talk about taller ones?

I'm really not too optomisitc for NY to be honest, it's probably one of the most dissapointing skyscraper cities there are when it comes to proposals being cancelled, or just not existing at all, but who knows, maybe the future will be better.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 08:40 AM   #771
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

^Nah, the most disappointing skyscraper city is Chicago, but even then, it's skyline and height is amazing
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 10:45 AM   #772
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by azn_man12345 View Post
^Nah, the most disappointing skyscraper city is Chicago, but even then, it's skyline and height is amazing
Yea also true, but Chicago already has 4 1100+ foot buildings and one of the greatest skylines ever. (Not saying NYC doesn't also have a great skyline, it absolutely does)

I just never get my hopes up for proposals in either city.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 07:39 PM   #773
LucasOWTC
Lucas OWTC
 
LucasOWTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Natal
Posts: 45
Likes (Received): 2

I also think NYC will never build the tallest building in the world again. But at least i would like to build buildings that could rival the great projects we see today in Shanghai, Dubai, Seoul and other cities. When I look at the skyscrapers under construction in America today and compare it to certain projects in the outside world, i'm discouraged.

I hope they make a 2000 foot taller in NY in the next 15 years.

Last edited by LucasOWTC; December 4th, 2011 at 07:59 PM. Reason: a little mistake
LucasOWTC no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 08:48 PM   #774
lezgotolondon
Pescara ▄ber Alles
 
lezgotolondon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pisa[] Bristol[x]
Posts: 3,921
Likes (Received): 1527

I like the manhattan skyline because has beautiful clusters of beautiful scrapers, not a chaotic forests of condos and some huge skyscrapers both beautiful and ugly.

I like too much this project because will enlarge the central manhattan cluster and I like the design of buildings.

Imho america(usa+canada but also the AUZ+NZ style is the same) has the best cluster design and will keep having it judging the new skyscraper cities.

I don't like dubai, shangai,singapore for example, but Beijing is not bad and guangzhou too.

Hong Kong is something unique and amazing.

I'm waiting for central and south america! I hope they will make something beautiful in the future!
lezgotolondon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 11:04 PM   #775
Matsky
Matsky
 
Matsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna
Posts: 2,964
Likes (Received): 43

stay on topic!
__________________
If I'll ever have a son I'll call him...Bill or George...anything but Sue.
-Johnny Cash-
Matsky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2011, 11:57 PM   #776
rencharles
We will never forget
 
rencharles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 93

Conversation thrown away. Stay on topic '2.
rencharles no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 12:58 AM   #777
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

http://www.observer.com/2011/12/the-...oised-for-nyc/

The White Whale of West 57th Street: Nordstrom appears poised for NYC
By Daniel Geiger 2:00pm
It’s the great white whale of Manhattan retail.

Aside from Walmart, Nordstrom is the store every retail broker in the city dreams of harpooning and reeling into a new home. One prominent broker familiar with the store, the amount of space it needs and the rents it would probably be willing to pay estimates that the commission for handling its lease would be around $10 million.

But like a leviathan lurking beneath the waves, the department store has offered only fleeting glimpses around the city, most notably at several development sites and a few existing assets with the capacity to accommodate its sprawling footprint.

The scuttlebutt nowadays: Nordstrom is contemplating one of two leases, one at the West Side rail yards with the Related Companies or another at the base of Extell Development’s soaring new residential tower now rising at 157 West 57th Street.


Illustration by Zack Nipper
According to brokers familiar with Nordstrom’s search, the options are emblematic of the dilemma that has kept the retailer bouncing around Manhattan for years. The department store is ideally searching for a roughly 250,000-square-foot box, a commodity so rare in the city that the only major department stores that have it—Macy’s and Saks among a short list of others—are ones that have been established in the city for decades and hence had a chance to address their real estate needs before the market became as expensive and supply-starved as it is now.

The solution, of course, has been for Nordstrom to accept a smaller space with a layout that is atypical for a traditional department store. Many brokers say the template for this configuration is the Bloomingdale’s on Broadway in Soho, where the retailer had to greatly reduce the size of its store and tailor its clothing line and layout to appeal to the type of shoppers in that neighborhood.

A similar reshuffling of the Nordstrom concept would likely be necessary to bring the chain to Extell’s project, brokers told The Commercial Observer. The attractiveness of the rail yards stems from an assumption that the company could design a building from the ground up to meet all of its specifications.

But the rail yards are considered a new frontier in the city with little retail connecting the site to Midtown, making a deal there a gamble if the neighborhood takes longer than expected to develop into a popular destination for shoppers.

Extell’s development, though perhaps ill fitting for Nordstrom, would place it at the center of Midtown and near the Time Warner Center, a successful high-end retail mall in Columbus Circle that has helped designate the neighborhood as a retail hub.

Nordstrom has been linked to that area before. Last year, developer Stephen Ross bought the mortgage on the office building 3 Columbus Circle with the intent to foreclose on the property, raze it and erect a new tower with Nordstrom in the base. The deal fizzled when Joe Moinian, 3 Columbus’s landlord, held onto the property by recapitalizing the building with SL Green.

The trade-off between location and compatibility has been a conflict for the company for more than five years. Nordstrom almost had a deal to move into an office tower that was to be built by Stephen Ross and Harry Macklowe on the former site of the Drake Hotel at 57th Street and Park Avenue. A person directly involved in those talks said that lease eventually crumbled because Nordstrom pushed the physical limits of the project, insisting on towering ceiling heights and other amenities.

“They wanted 18-foot ceilings,” the person said. “You could literally do two office floors for every floor that they wanted. They placed themselves out of the game by needing too much.”

The office building at 650 Madison Avenue, not far from the Drake site, has also been a location that Nordstrom has considered. According to brokers, the issues plaguing that property centered around the likelihood that nearby department stores like Saks, Bloomingdale’s, Barneys and Bergdorf Goodman would balk at or even bar its vendors from supplying Nordstrom with the brands that they sell, which would essentially prevent Nordstrom from being competitive.

“None of the existing department stores are going to roll over and give into Nordstrom without a fight,” the broker said, adding that he wasn’t “100 percent certain that they have given up on 650 Madison.”

Perhaps out of necessity, the company has poked around downtown, reportedly checking out an anchor tenancy at the World Financial Center office complex as well as the retail being built at the World Trade Center. Here again, brokers said, Nordstrom has expressed a preference to be in Midtown.

[email protected]

Last edited by RobertWalpole; December 8th, 2011 at 04:12 AM.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 03:21 AM   #778
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

That's for the article RW! Nordstrom does seem an odd fit at One57 to be honest, and as the article mentioned, I'm sure Related would basically build almost whatever Nordstrom wanted if they inked a deal, within the existing parameters of their plan of course, which do still seem to be flexible though. Plus Nordstrom can have more space!

All signs point to the final phase of the High Line extending up here, and new apartment buildings are already popping up in the area surrounding the rail yards well before the 7 train is finished, (there's a 30 story and a 32 story rental buildings that both kicked off in the last month, not to mention a 1000+ unit development on 45th), might be smart for Nordstrom to ink a deal sooner rather than later.

The amount of construction in this area in a couple of years when is going to simply be astounding.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 03:25 AM   #779
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
That's for the article RW!
My pleasure, sir.

I wonder if the article meant to refer to the new Extell site at 225 W 57th instead of One 57. I don't see how One 57 could possibly accomodate a department store.
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 04:20 AM   #780
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

That's what I though initially, but third full paragraph it says One57. Weird. I'm putting my money on the Hudson Yards.
yankeesfan1000 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 12:01 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