Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicism
 
Skyscraper nerds getting defensive already? |
Nerds likely don't want trolls polluting threads, hence the responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicism
I was merely pointing out that the Hudson Spire will never reach a height of 1800' ft unless it has a wacky spire, but we all know that the number 1776' has to be preserved because of a gentlemen's agreement.
|
And we were merely pointing out that A. You have no idea of the future height of this site B. There is no such "gentleman's agreement" and C. It's clear you haven't reviewed the thread, or you wouldn't be so ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicism
It is also well known that Tishman Speyer is a conservative developer. A 1200' ft office building sounds just about right for that parcel. The reason why 1 Vanderbilt is taller than any other office building is because it is a narrow site. Developers build for profits, not for show.
|
No, actually Tishman Speyer is not known for being a conservative developer (they have some of the largest/riskiest projects on earth right now, in Asia), one Vanderbilt is not "taller than any other office building" and is not on a "narrow site". So you're 0 for 3 there.
And we're well aware that "developers build for profits, not for show". What this has to do with the conversation is beyond me. Are you arguing that all the developers are idiots?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicism
Also, please point out a parcel that could support a 500m tower?
|
You seem to be ignorant of the NYC zoning code. A 500m tower could be built anywhere in the city where there is no height limit. Much of Midtown and Lower Manhattan have no height limit. Parts of Brooklyn and Queens have no height limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicism
Real proposals, not speculation. I am curious to know, since some claim that there are "many sites available".
|
Re-read the thread, if you're so curious. Better yet, consult the zoning text.