HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1601  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2016, 3:40 PM
Eidolon's Avatar
Eidolon Eidolon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 697
Not a real proposal, but pretty cool nonetheless....


State Of The Art Office Tower For New York City
By: admin
December - 17 - 2014

Quote:
New York city is experiencing a new golden era, high-rise constructions are booming all over Manhattan, but most of new developments are residential.
Beside Hudson Yard, few projects are design for offices even if the city clearly lacks of new renting spaces. Today 80% of offices spaces in Midtown are out dated, old and built decades ago.
The ITC tower designed by Chapelle Corentin, 4th-year student at Paris’ Speciale School of Architecture, is an hypothetical project trying to imagine and prove in what ways is possible to design
a state of the art office space dealing with nowadays needs in a challenging city such as New York City (what impact such a project can have and could have for the city, what benefits, what opportunities …etc).

Focusing on imaging the tower as a trigger for new development and redefine business in midtown. It has been so long for midtown to be only the
stage for the most powerful and giant companies but don’t forget that America’s engine is driven by start-ups and small but dynamic companies that one day will could be a major leading one.
Performing a new attractive and economic input in Midtown would be a keystone for those particular companies that will design the future
of our economy also making on the path the city attractive again for outsiders and welcoming new businesses.

Defining new spaces that can be enjoyable even in 1000 feet in the air. Forgetting the traditional floor space, drove by 50’s ideas of consumerism and international style create
such hostile and sad space to work in. Expression of comfort and wellness put together with new technologies that improving livable experience but also reducing the tower footprint
on the environment are such important factors on a tower that wants to lead a new century revolution in an already aged city.

The tower is a great opportunity to create a 21century experience in the heart of midtown and promoting New York as a great hot spot for future innovations and expanding companies.
A beacon for New York city as creating not only an iconic skyscraper redefining the skyline but also compete in the XXI century global market.






Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1602  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2016, 3:43 PM
Eidolon's Avatar
Eidolon Eidolon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTall...S/Default.aspx

World’s Tallest Free-Fall Ride Envisioned for New York City’s Penn Station

Hopefully this schlock never infests the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1603  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2016, 4:23 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Sorry folks. Maybe next time.

http://therealdeal.com/2016/06/22/bi...ils-in-albany/

Bill to remove building height restrictions fails in Albany
Measure could be resurrected in next legislative session


June 22, 2016


Quote:
A state bill that would have lifted height restrictions on new development across much of New York City won’t be passed in Albany this legislative session.

The bill, introduced by Harlem Assembly member Keith Wright and state Sen. Simcha Felder, would have allowed developers to build significantly taller than currently allowed under zoning rules by removing restrictions on a building’s floor-area ratio, or FAR.

“Despite being killed this session, many expect it to be resurrected during the next legislative session,” the residents’ advocacy group Brooklyn Heights Association said in a statement cited by the Brooklyn Eagle.

The bill is backed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, who hopes it can boost his push to create or preserve 200,000 affordable housing units by 2025.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1604  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 2:37 AM
WIGGLEWORTH WIGGLEWORTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cities
Posts: 153
This is dissapointing. Now isn't the other restriction for height like 2000 feet? And its an FAA rule, correct? This is a separate issue I was curious about.
__________________
__________________________________________
I am Pancake re-incarnated
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1605  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 5:07 AM
newyorker newyorker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIGGLEWORTH View Post
This is dissapointing. Now isn't the other restriction for height like 2000 feet? And its an FAA rule, correct? This is a separate issue I was curious about.
I'm curious too, especially now that the location for the failed chicago spire has now reopened under a different name. It's height is 610m (2001 ft).

Somebody please tell me a serious megatall is in the works for NYC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1606  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 9:19 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
I wish Albany didn't have so much power over NYC. NYC in essence should be a separate city state independent of Albany's power. There is too much power in that city, and to have the provincial dunces in Albany control it is a shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1607  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 11:08 AM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I wish Albany didn't have so much power over NYC. NYC in essence should be a separate city state independent of Albany's power. There is too much power in that city, and to have the provincial dunces in Albany control it is a shame.
I agree. NYC should be a "special district", or as you said even a city state. It's ridiculous that some putzs from Albany can make decisions over such a powerful, gobal alpha city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newyorker View Post
I'm curious too, especially now that the location for the failed chicago spire has now reopened under a different name. It's height is 610m (2001 ft).

Somebody please tell me a serious megatall is in the works for NYC.
Not for now, no. The tallest we have right now is the CPT with a roof height of 1,550' (or 1,568' by some sources). My guess is there we'll be a serious megatall proposal by 2020 when all the 400m+ behemoths are built. Developers will have no choice but to build even taller to make a statement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1608  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 11:57 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,476
Who blocked the height bill? Republicans I would imagine.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1609  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2016, 10:46 PM
manchester united manchester united is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
Who blocked the height bill? Republicans I would imagine.
Does mean that Clinton's neighborhood will continue to have only ridicolous low buildings ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1610  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 10:38 AM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Re: 125 G

http://www.bizzipartners.com/125-greenwich

Updated renderings. Height looks about 1,000'.

Quote:
The developers at Bizzi expedited construction by leveraging their extensive knowledge of New York City zoning laws to use the prior owner’s foundation permit. During this approval process, they hired world-renowned firm Rafael Viñoly Architects to redesign the building. While many developers were focused on developing large family units, Bizzi chose an alternate approach when it came to 125 Greenwich. This 88-story luxury condominium will offer 275 smaller units, ranging from 400 square foot studios to 2,500 square foot three-bedroom apartments.

With a discreet footprint of just 9,000 square feet, this building will soar almost 1,000' into the sky – thanks to a feat of design and advanced structural engineering. Offering unobstructed, 360-degree views of the Hudson River, Battery Park, and Lower Manhattan, 125 Greenwich will redefine the city skyline in its own right. Units will enjoy 10-foot high ceilings that lend a sense of light and air to the interiors designed by London-based firm March & White. The building will also offer turn-key ready units with a range of stylish finish and furniture packages for 100% move-in ready convenience. World-class amenities will span over 15,000 square feet on the top three floors and will include a residents’ lounge, private dining with catering kitchen, library, children’s playroom, and a state-of-the-art gym with yoga studio, vitality pool, lap pool, sauna, steam room, therapy rooms, and a juice bar.


Those 2 renders were also updated.






Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1611  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 11:21 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
This is the site of Queen's near super tall. At 984 ft. Good to see that its being cleared out and set to rise. Although at that height, its 299.923m. I want them to add a little flag on top to get the extra .077m. Make it 300.00m.



Credit: nyc1

Just a reminder:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1612  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 5:00 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
I'm disappointed that 125 Greenwich will only be 1,000 ft. And the design is only average. Oh, well.

In any case, there are at least two other nearby future development sites that could have similar or taller heights- 111 Washington St. and the American Stock Exchange site.

Once those two sites get developed it will bring the WTC height further south. Plus there's 5 WTC, which will be developed at some point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1613  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 7:21 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,476
Holy crap, can't believe Queens is getting that tower. Will completely redefine the borough.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1614  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 8:21 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
Holy crap, can't believe Queens is getting that tower. Will completely redefine the borough.
This 900+ footer as well (although its not moving along as fast):

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1615  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 11:00 AM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
This is the site of Queen's near super tall. At 984 ft. Good to see that its being cleared out and set to rise. Although at that height, its 299.923m. I want them to add a little flag on top to get the extra .077m. Make it 300.00m.
Although 984ft does not equal 300m, it is "officially" (i.e. by the CTBUH) classified as supertall.

Anyway, LIC is getting two behemoths!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1616  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 11:58 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by manchester united View Post
Does mean that Clinton's neighborhood will continue to have only ridicolous low buildings ?
By "Clinton's neighborhood" do you mean Clinton / Hell's Kitchen?

It's a historic district. It's not going to become packed with skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1617  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2016, 1:32 PM
manchester united manchester united is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
By "Clinton's neighborhood" do you mean Clinton / Hell's Kitchen?

It's a historic district. It's not going to become packed with skyscrapers.
I hate that hole in Midtown Manhattan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1618  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2016, 1:35 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Clinton isn't a landmark district. It's a special district, a special deal cut under the Koch administration.

Basically Koch was desperate to build a convention center, and wanted it in Clinton, but the community was resisting mightily. So he basically cut a deal where the convention center would be built but the area would get ridiculously stringent height regulations.

As it turned out, the city couldn't assemble the land in Clinton anyways, and ended up building the current Javits Center to the south. So the whole zoning restriction was for nothing. But it will be tough to overturn given the local NIMBY establishment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1619  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2016, 6:19 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Transport Planner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Clinton isn't a landmark district. It's a special district, a special deal cut under the Koch administration.

Basically Koch was desperate to build a convention center, and wanted it in Clinton, but the community was resisting mightily. So he basically cut a deal where the convention center would be built but the area would get ridiculously stringent height regulations.

As it turned out, the city couldn't assemble the land in Clinton anyways, and ended up building the current Javits Center to the south. So the whole zoning restriction was for nothing. But it will be tough to overturn given the local NIMBY establishment.
Wait...I thought a good portion of Clinton was upzoned, during the process the city undertook to plan the Hudson Yards (people seem to forget it's much more than the railyards).


from HYDC.org


What I know, is that they ended up not pursuing as great an upzoning, though, because of community concerns.

* There's a massing, somewhere, but I can't locate it. I suppose I probably saw it in a video, at some point.
__________________
"I'm not an armchair urbanist; not yet a licensed planner"
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1620  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2016, 6:51 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
[SIZE="2"]Wait...I thought a good portion of Clinton was upzoned, during the process the city undertook to plan the Hudson Yards (people seem to forget it's much more than the railyards).
Yes, parts were upzoned, but I'm talking about Clinton, which is between 42nd and 57th Streets.

There have been some modest upzonings in Clinton, but nothing coming close to rolling back the mega-downzoning of the Koch administration (a huge planning mistake, IMO, probably costing the city billions over time).

I would guess, very LONG term, the neighborhood will be upzoned. At some point it becomes absurd, surrounded by huge towers on all sides. The community will resist, but at some point the NIMBYs will have died off enough that a mayor will be able to get something passed, at least for major towers along the avenues. Bloomberg kinda tried a compromise plan, and it didn't go far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.