SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   NEW YORK | Hudson Yards; 40 msf of development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123575)

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 1, 2010 3:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4813756)
http://www.observer.com/2010/real-es...s-go-1200-foot

For Steve Ross, Rail Yards Rent Starts When Apartments Cost $1,200 a Foot

By Eliot Brown
April 26, 2010

http://www.archpaper.com/images/news...rookfield2.jpg

are we still getting this?

NYguy May 2, 2010 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4820672)
are we still getting this?

No. That's an old Brookfield proposal.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 3, 2010 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4822013)
No. That's an old Brookfield proposal.

awwwww that sux it was so pretty :(

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 3, 2010 2:18 AM

is there a possiblity of anything rising higher than the ESB?

Crawford May 3, 2010 2:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4822013)
No. That's an old Brookfield proposal.

That is the current Brookfield proposal for the 9th Avenue site.

So yes, we will probably get this, or something roughly resembling this.

Crawford May 3, 2010 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4822740)
is there a possiblity of anything rising higher than the ESB?

Yes. Some of the sites have no height limits.

scalziand May 3, 2010 8:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 4822820)
That is the current Brookfield proposal for the 9th Avenue site.

So yes, we will probably get this, or something roughly resembling this.

That is incorrect. The Brookfield proposal is the 4 buildings in the background of that picture, which have since been consolidated into the current 2 building proposal.

NYguy May 3, 2010 2:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 4823062)
That is incorrect. The Brookfield proposal is the 4 buildings in the background of that picture, which have since been consolidated into the current 2 building proposal.

You sir, win the prize...:yes:

All of us that salivated over Brookfield's plan remember it all too well, and were disappointed when Brookfield pulled out to focus on the Manhattan West site.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/90554015/large.jpg

A look at the model of both Brookfield proposals together...


JT'sPhotos

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...17cec6e3_b.jpg


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...405553f0_b.jpg

nycdagreatest May 3, 2010 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 4822823)
Yes. Some of the sites have no height limits.

Does Trump still want to build the tallest building in the world in nyc or at least a 2000 footer? because this will be a great place to develop it.

BStyles May 4, 2010 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 4822823)
Yes. Some of the sites have no height limits.

Yeah, and it's called the World Trade Center.

Seriously, building a 2000 footer to overshadow the Empire State Building is just wrong. I mean, Midtown can have some density, but it should also have some common sense. The Empire State Building stands as the tallest in Midtown to show that it was the first to do so, the tallest in the world at the time, and I think it should retain that title for the next 30+ years or so. (I would've said 50+ years but by then I'd look like an idiot.)

lawfin May 4, 2010 6:47 PM

Why is 30+ any different that 50+

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 5, 2010 4:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStyles (Post 4824892)
Yeah, and it's called the World Trade Center.

Seriously, building a 2000 footer to overshadow the Empire State Building is just wrong. I mean, Midtown can have some density, but it should also have some common sense. The Empire State Building stands as the tallest in Midtown to show that it was the first to do so, the tallest in the world at the time, and I think it should retain that title for the next 30+ years or so. (I would've said 50+ years but by then I'd look like an idiot.)

no offense but your crazy....its been the biggest in Midtown for 79 years i think thats good enough,its time for a new icon to rise in Midtown from this generation

NYguy May 5, 2010 2:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStyles (Post 4824892)
The Empire State Building stands as the tallest in Midtown to show that it was the first to do so, the tallest in the world at the time, and I think it should retain that title for the next 30+ years or so. (I would've said 50+ years but by then I'd look like an idiot.)

The reason the Empire State has remained the tallest in Midtown is a little bit of luck, and a little bit fate. There have been numerous proposals of taller towers - some with more of a chance at being built than others. Eventually, there will be a taller tower in Midtown, though there are practical reasons as well why a taller building hasn't been built yet(think cost).

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 7, 2010 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4826304)
The reason the Empire State has remained the tallest in Midtown is a little bit of luck, and a little bit fate. There have been numerous proposals of taller towers - some with more of a chance at being built than others. Eventually, there will be a taller tower in Midtown, though there are practical reasons as well why a taller building hasn't been built yet(think cost).

ya but its logical to build something taller, NYC is running out of space to expand hoizontally,so we must expand vertically

NYguy May 7, 2010 8:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4829988)
ya but its logical to build something taller

Actually, it's not logical to build taller than the ESB, because of the costs associated with building that high. New York may need the new office space, but you can't use the logic that 200-story office tower would alleviate that. There's more that goes into skyscraper building than height. It actually would be more logical to build a residential/hotel tower at that height, because the floor space would be minimal on those upper floors. It used to be that the world's tallest buildings were office buildings, but not so much anymore.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 11, 2010 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4830082)
Actually, it's not logical to build taller than the ESB, because of the costs associated with building that high. New York may need the new office space, but you can't use the logic that 200-story office tower would alleviate that. There's more that goes into skyscraper building than height. It actually would be more logical to build a residential/hotel tower at that height, because the floor space would be minimal on those upper floors. It used to be that the world's tallest buildings were office buildings, but not so much anymore.

true but all im saying is that its time for something taller,esspecialy since NYC must meet the demands of the new generation and century, with not new developable space the only place to go is up

Dac150 May 11, 2010 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4835400)
esspecialy since NYC must meet the demands of the new generation and century

Which has nothing to do with the height of a building, but everything to do with the functionality of one. Let’s not misunderstand practicality.

Dac150 May 11, 2010 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4835400)
true but all im saying is that its time for something taller

What exactly justifies that? My guess is that because you see other global cities building these tall towers, you think New York should follow suit. The reality is New York doesn’t need to build tall for the sake of doing so.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork May 11, 2010 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150 (Post 4835421)
What exactly justifies that? My guess is that because you see other global cities building these tall towers, you think New York should follow suit. The reality is New York doesn’t need to build tall for the sake of doing so.

i never said that....but we cant deny the fact that Manhattan is an island that cannot just grow more land because its running out...without deconstruction there will be no space avaliable in a few years so all im saying is that places like the hudson yards should be used to get that space thats needed for the future work force and future residents of NY and build large vertically since space is limited to build horizontally

NYguy May 12, 2010 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4835430)
i never said that....but we cant deny the fact that Manhattan is an island that cannot just grow more land because its running out...

Which is why you see initiatives like the Hudson Yards rezoning. It's where the next major expansion of commercial space in Midtown will take place. And it has NOTHING to do with height. Skyscrapers are built for practical reasons, and as you should know, it's only practical to build commercial office space up to a certain height. New York is not some "new on the scene" city that needs to build a supertall for the sake of attracting attenion and saying "look at me, I'm a big city too...".


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.