It was built to have 110 floors not 130. At best it can reach 1,700 feet, and 2,000 feet is impossible. Again we don't want 2,000 feet skyscrapers. It is only going to be empty like the skyscrapers in China and Dubai. We don't want empty skyscrapers. We want ours to be full. So no this won't happen. Besides America doesn't care about skyscrapers anymore. Most Americans want more mass transit. We don't want a good view we want more ways to move around. If you guys like it so much you can move to China, you can move to Dubai. Just stop complaining.

China and Dubai can have both (good transit and fantastic scrapers), we could too. They are not mutually exclusive even here. Transit is usually government funded and real estate is private. If the need arises for taller towers in Manhattan in the future, I'm sure wanting will have nothing to do with it. If the economy starts growing and manhattan is still a hot location for business in the future, they will have no choice but to maximize the small land area and go up.

Most Americans don't want mass transit. That is why they elected a congress full of transit hating fools. The new transportation bill shows you what most americans think of transit, they prefer cars and oil rigs. Also is Mitt is elected, say goodbye to HSR and transit funding. Say hello to off-shore drilling and highway expansion.

I didn't say that the Metlife North should be 2,000 feet by rooftop. Something good above the height of the Sears Tower is what would suffice. A few years ago, this country was thinking on building a 2,000-foot building,but the economy rendered that useless. I don't want any western skyline to be filled with tall empty skyscrapers, but I don't want our cities to stop growing in height. London, a city long against the development of anything tall, now has a supertall. And if it makes the situation here seem better, skyscrapers are only built if there's a demand. And there will always be a demand in NYC.

I'd prefer though if most US cities focused on becoming cities and not parking lots before they started thinking about taller towers. I.e, what use is tall towers is nobody actually wants to use the city center or live there?

A 2000ft tower is a vanity project, but in China w/ their population and congested cities, it will serve them well in the future. NYC could also fall into that category with the tiny landmass called manhattan. THen again, the economy could collapse again.

I also see NIMBY issues for a 2000 foot tower. I'd be happy with a 500m to roof in NYC.

Yeah I wouldnt want empty skyscrapers either...But I think Americans should care about infrastructure and competing globally with the Chinese and Arabs again...And with transit and skyscrapers both. LOL and Id def never go live in China no thanks!

Can't compete with the Arabs.... they had a blank slate and OIL funds and they are princedoms with no democracy. Dubai had Abu Dhabi helping it out. Arab states are unique cases, don't even think Americans can start building towns like they did. You don't compete. The Germans don't need to compete do they? No.

Chinese skyscraper construction has little to do with population or congestion.

Most Chinese skyscrapers aren't built in a traditional urban format, anyways. They're usually in Pudong-style planned zones, with suburban-style formats. A place like Paris has far higher density, without highrises.

And Chinese population is projected to decline significantly over the long-term, so I don't think it's accurate to say that skyscraper construction serves future growth needs.

But that's what sets America apart. We can build relatively tall towers but only out of demand. Probably all of the towers going up in the eastern world are being built so they can say they have the tallest, it's where America was in the 20s. 432 park is going up in NY because there is need of new retail, not say NY has a 1,420 foot roof that looks good but no one actually lives there. One of the most interesting things about infrastructure, specifically towers,IMO is what goes on on the inside.

They do, because population overall is the factor that is fueling their economic growth and the reason why there is so much investment in China - labor, market size, etc. So, indirectly, these speculative towers are the result of population. Chinese cities are still growing also Ever hear of rural-urban migration?

Chinese are planning taller towers for image and practical means. They know that their cities are crammed and there is little room to sprawl, so they are planning for the future by building tall towers that satisfy their need for prestige and for reducing the need to build office towers all over the place. They also like low density CBD's due to cultural factors.

NIMBY's don't know the difference between a 2000 footer and the 1420 footer that's going up now.

So yes it's possible, there's also a 1776 foot tower being built. NIMBYs don't know it's 1776 to the spire, they just see the figure.

Basically if you build as of right those morons can't do shitaki mushrooms. Plus as more and more tall buildings are built, the less power they will have. If it can make money it will get built regardless of what a bunch of yammering idiots think.

Oh fuck yes we do want a 2,000 ft tower. Isn't 1 WTC 1,776 ft? Are you saying it will be empty? Weren't the original twins well occupied? 2,000 ft and 1,776 feet is not much of a difference.

The difference between Dubai, and the Chinese cities is that they're all economic wastelands and New York is the financial, wealth and commerce capital of the world. I can guanrentee that a 2,000 ft tower in Manhattan wouldn't sit empty.

I don't think anyone is asking for 50 2,000 ft towers, but a few would suffice.

We can't even get Two and Three World Trade Center leased, and Four World Trade Center is filled with government tenants because they can't find any private tenants and you are already saying that we should build a 2,000 footer? That is outrageous, and not just that a majority of the Hudson Yard towers still don't have tenants. New York can't build buildings that would be empty. We did it with the Empire State Building, and we did it with the original World Trade Center. It was mistake and NYC will not do that again...

if it were office hotel and residential it would surely be leased full.

Did I say they had to be office buildings?

Do you think 432 Park Avenue will be empty? I very highly doubt it. 432 Park Avenue is taller than the WTC both past and present by roof height.

In any case, the economy is awful but it will improve and the WTC will eventually be leased. And four towers weren't necessary. If we consolidated all the uncessary towers on the WTC compex and built one 2,000 ft tower, it would obviously be fully leased. If we built two 2,000 ft twins it would be over half leased. The rest of the land could have been used for parkland or sold off to private developers. Also, the Hudson Yards or Manhattan West could discard its twin tower concepts and create one 2,000 ft + tower if the developers wanted to do so. So yes, 2,000ft buildings can be completely feasable.

The US needs to build supertalls if there is a need for them, plain and simple, and in cities like New York, there is only one way to go..up! Yeah it's easier to build supertalls in China or Dubai because the government decides what will be built and then it gets built because they have an authoritarian system. Beating the height of our skyscrapers is just icing on the cake for them. But it's not all roses for China...their system the most unequal between the haves and have nots ever. And their population is aging. New York is such a vibrant hub, and melting pot and has such rich history with skyscrapers that I'm sure supertalls wouldn't have trouble finding tenants or paying for themselves, by virtue of tourism..Look how many used to visit windows on the world at the old wtc...and how many will visit the new wtc and it's observation deck....1WTC will be a huge tourist attraction when it's finished...All I'm saying is when the opportunity presents itself to build a supertall here, and it's planned height happens to be over 1400 feet, then we should go for it!! I seriously doubt any future supertall in New York would have trouble bringing major money in, provided it was iconic and vibrant enough.

Again there is a lot more complicated issues than just looking at them in the eye. You guys think it is so easy, but it is not. Again though the Metropolitan Life North Tower can easily pass the roof height of 1,400 feet so it can have an observation deck that matches the CN Tower if it ever is complete which remains uncertain at this point in time.

A 2000 footer would be great, but I'd be happier if Met Life North was completed at the planned 1550 ft roof height. Finish that first, then go on to something bigger if there is a need.
NYC needs another art deco style supertall. I think 432 Park would be nicer if it used the design for Silverstein's on-hold 912 ft 4 seasons hotel but extended to 1420 ft. A few small setbacks and inside corners could do wonders.

The Metropolitan Life North Tower was supposed to reach around 1,700 feet if you count the mast. The roof height was around 1,400 feet. It was supposed to have 100-110 floors.

Yeah, a mixed- use (hotel / residential / office / shopping) 2,000 footer in NY would certainly be occupied. Just imagine, the observation deck alone would make big $$$. We just need some big ego billionaire to step in.

I daresay any self-respecting North American city needs (that is, wants) another art deco style supertall.