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)

NYC4Life Jan 30, 2010 7:29 PM

Too bad for the NIMBY losers, the area is already zoned for large and tall buildings. :haha:

And yes, there are Islands where we can send these NIMBY's.....right on Dubai's Palm Islands.

Lecom Jan 30, 2010 7:58 PM

Lolwut? First it's Hong Kong on the Hudson, now it's Dubai?

ardecila Jan 30, 2010 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4674322)
Is there an island we can send these people to?

They're already on an island. Maybe they could move to Staten?

Busy Bee Jan 30, 2010 11:03 PM

Or Rikers.

NYguy Jan 31, 2010 3:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 4674322)
Is there an island we can send these people to? ...

Forget the 9/11 trials, move these idiots to Governors Island.

NYC4Life Jan 31, 2010 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4675056)
Forget the 9/11 trials, move these idiots to Governors Island.

There's always Potter's Field on Hart Island.

Dac150 Jan 31, 2010 3:54 PM

I wouldn’t waste too much time being concerned with these folks. It’s the same old song and dance every time, but in this case a lot of zoning work was performed to warrant such a large development. I have no doubt that this site will eventually amount to that; it’s just a question of when (which will most likely be during the next boom).

kenratboy Feb 1, 2010 7:13 AM

I think this is a self-correcting problem. As free property, especially lots conducive to BIG projects, become more scarce and expensive, you will see bigger and bigger projects built (vs. some 15 story 'thing' that does not raise eyebrows).

If we are lucky, small developments will be priced out of the market, and only very tall or very unique/special projects will be built out of business necessity.

photoLith Feb 1, 2010 5:16 PM

Why do these NIMBY fuckwits live in NYC? Why dont they move to the suburbs and enjoy a lack of architectural diversity there instead of living in one of the most dense cities on the planet? These people piss me off to no end, uhg.

FerrariEnzo Feb 1, 2010 8:19 PM

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ent_unchanged/

Goldman-Sachs has backed out of their minority stake but that will not halt development...

Nowhereman1280 Feb 1, 2010 8:34 PM

Send the NIMBYs somewhere far worse than Staten Island or any other island... Send them right to New Jersey...

NYguy Feb 2, 2010 2:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4677202)
Send the NIMBYs somewhere far worse than Staten Island or any other island... Send them right to New Jersey...

They would only find something else to whine about. The problem fo them is no one would care as much. Why they're always taken so seriously in Manhattan is an issue for the media.

NYguy Feb 17, 2010 2:37 PM

Petition to get the second station on the 7 line extension into Hudson Yards built...
http://www.buildthestation.com/

KVNBKLYN Feb 17, 2010 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4703892)
Petition to get the second station on the 7 line extension into Hudson Yards built...
http://www.buildthestation.com/

While I agree the decision to not even build a shell for the 10th Avenue station was stupid and shortsighted, I wonder if this REBNY petition is too little too late. Where were they last year or two years ago when the digging started? It's my understanding that the TBMs will be finished digging the tunnels by this summer. Does anyone know how this will affect the MTA's ability to excavate this station?

KVNBKLYN Feb 17, 2010 3:08 PM

In fact, according to the Times article, there's a building going up on the site where the station entrance is supposed to be. If I remember correctly, the original design for the station had it integrated with the new building. How are they going to do that now?

From the NY Times:

Quote:

...“We think it should have two stops,” said Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board. “There is substantial growth already taking place near 10th and 41st. For them to quietly let the station evaporate, without anyone telling anybody, is a mistake.”

The station’s status is not exactly news, however. City and transit authority officials say that the station was eliminated from the plans more than two years ago, and it was not a secret. There were newspaper articles and protests by elected officials, including Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Jerrold Nadler. The city and the authority did retain an “option” with its construction contractor to build the second station, but that expired in September 2008.

For now, the plan is to continue to cut a tunnel from 34th and 11th to the current No. 7 terminus at Times Square. The tunnel will pass by 41st and 10th, where the second station was to be built.

...

Mr. Spinola said developers like Joseph Moinian and Larry Silverstein and tenants in some of the new towers on 42nd Street had long understood that the station would be built. The board, in fact, is so eager to see plans for it resurrected in these financially trying times that it says local landlords may be willing to provide some cash, say $50 million of the $800 million cost.

...

But not all landlords are up in arms about the omission. Unlike commercial developers, residential developers on the West Side have long said the subway extension was a good idea but not critical to their success.

“It helps residential guys,” said Tom Elghanayan, chairman of TF Cornerstone. “But if it’s not built, it’d be fatal for commercial development. That means no office development in that part of town.”

Cornerstone recently completed and leased a building with 395 apartments on the east side of 10th Avenue, between 37th and 38th Streets. It is now finishing a two-tower building on the west side of the avenue with 865 apartments.

The second station would be on land at 41st Street and 10th Avenue where Related Companies is erecting a large residential tower. “I’m not slowing my building down for it,” said Related’s chief executive, Stephen M. Ross. “We were told there’s no money around at all. God knows, the M.T.A. doesn’t have any money.”

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Mar 25, 2010 9:56 PM

so what will happen when NYC is out of developable space?

JSsocal Mar 25, 2010 9:59 PM

Simple: Beautiful old buildings get torn down for plain glass boxes

NYguy Mar 25, 2010 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal (Post 4765653)
Simple: Beautiful old buildings get torn down for plain glass boxes

Or ugly, old, and impractical buildings get torn down for towers to house the city's economic growth. The alternative is to have a dead city, and New York has shown over the years that it will be anything but.

FerrariEnzo Mar 26, 2010 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 4765646)
so what will happen when NYC is out of developable space?

Queens will get some love.

JSsocal Mar 26, 2010 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 4765764)
Or ugly, old, and impractical buildings get torn down for towers to house the city's economic growth. The alternative is to have a dead city, and New York has shown over the years that it will be anything but.

juuuuust being cynical...:D

NYguy Mar 26, 2010 4:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo (Post 4765926)
Queens will get some love.

The City has been pushing to create the city's fourth largest business district in Long Island City, but it has been slow to develop. Even Downtown Brooklyn has seen more residential than commercial towers develop. But the boom times will return, and the drought in new office construction now will be force a flood of new construction.

Boss-ton Mar 27, 2010 6:06 AM

for the first time ever im gonna be a nimby on this project it needs to be shorter so its not blocking the empire state building. They need to keep buildings away from it and shorter than it for ones that are close. I like right now how its in the center and theirs buildings on the otskirts and behind it but no supertall should be up farther than downtown than esb. The new proposal is perfect the original one was definately too big.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Mar 27, 2010 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss-ton (Post 4768146)
for the first time ever im gonna be a nimby on this project it needs to be shorter so its not blocking the empire state building. They need to keep buildings away from it and shorter than it for ones that are close. I like right now how its in the center and theirs buildings on the otskirts and behind it but no supertall should be up farther than downtown than esb. The new proposal is perfect the original one was definately too big.

your entitled to your opinion but i think this site has to be built big...the ESB has held is place for almost 80 yrs. its time for a change and i think the Hudson Yards is the perfect place for supertalls that will rival the ESB. This is NYC's last piece of developable space,lests do it right and build HUGE towers that will rival some of the worlds tallest structures. :notacrook:

NYC4Life Mar 28, 2010 11:35 AM

The area is already zoned for large towers, that is what we'll eventually see here. How tall though? That's another question.

Lecom Mar 28, 2010 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4677202)
Send the NIMBYs somewhere far worse than Staten Island or any other island... Send them right to New Jersey...

Staten Island better than Jersey? :haha:

NYC2ATX Mar 29, 2010 1:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom (Post 4769910)
Staten Island better than Jersey?

Sure is! Don't hate, appreciate, bitches. :banana:

P.S. The last thing we need here in Staten Island is more NIMBYs. Pass!

NYguy Mar 29, 2010 1:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237 (Post 4770181)
P.S. The last thing we need here in Staten Island is more NIMBYs. Pass!

Not to continue this off topic business, but check out the movie "Staten Island". It does for Staten Island what the "Sopranos" did for Jersey...:tup:

mrnyc Apr 12, 2010 4:34 PM

if only building over the railyards wasnt so super-complicated, time consuming and expensive.

lets dont forget the other and even more practical site for supertalls is over on the eastside of manhattan south of the united nations.

we are out of the worst of the financial crisis -- which site will get built up first? :shrug:

NYguy Apr 13, 2010 1:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc (Post 4791658)
lets dont forget the other and even more practical site for supertalls is over on the eastside of manhattan south of the united nations.

There's no immediate subway service there, and the area is mostly residential, which is one of the reasons there was only one commercial tower planned there in the con ed redevelopment plan.

NYguy Apr 27, 2010 12:43 AM

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

Quote:

The M.T.A. on Monday made public its new $1 billion deal with Stephen Ross' Related Companies to develop the West Side rail yards, and in it are some details about just when the agency can start to expect taking in rent for selling off the air over its giant 26-acre LIRR yard by the Javits Center.

According to the agreement, which is up for full board approval Wednesday and still needs to be signed by Related, the developer does not need to close on the deal until:

-Midtown office space availability rates hit 11 percent, according to brokerage CB Richard Ellis. While the current rate is at 14.8 percent as of March, 11 percent is relatively achievable, as according to CBRE numbers, midtown averaged well below 11 percent between 2005 and 2007.

-Manhattan co-op and condo sales price achieve an average $1,200 a square foot for a sustained period (it's slightly more nuanced than this). The fourth quarter of 2009 saw an average price of $1,051, according to Miller Samuel. The rate has cracked $1,200 a foot in three separate quarters in the last cycle, hitting a peak $1,322 a foot in the second quarter of 2008.

-The architectural billings index must pass 50 for the commercial sector. It's currently at a bit below 45, and was last over 50 in early 2008.

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 3:26 AM.

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