New York Supertalls

[hunser]

Although not topped out yet, I think it's safe to say that 3WTC has reached supertall status.

Originally Posted by chris08876

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by hunser

^ Nice compilation! Obviously they missed 45 Broad St (1,115'). And 125 G is >1,000ft.

45 Broad was officially permitted today. Height, as expected, is 1,115, per the new building permits.

[hunser]

• Video Link

[chris08876]

As a good contributor once said, this is the age of Ramses.

I had to extract this png file from a NY Times article. Its from the 6/5/2016 issue "The New York Issue"

[chris08876]

Our YIMBY contributor Otie has some nice renderings.

Credit: Otie

[hunser]

^ I always loved Otie's renderings, he's the man!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ionfront&_r=1#

Life above 800 feet in a city relentlessly on the rise.

--> Some very cool photos!

[chris08876]

===============================
http://manhattanwestnyc.com/wp-conte...4/1MW-Full.pdf

[hunser]

http://therealdeal.com/2016/06/06/ne...esi-buildings/

New state bill would allow more units in resi buildings
De Blasio-backed measure would end “floor area ratio” cap

A bill that would allow New York developers to include more units in residential buildings is gaining support in Albany.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has backed the measure, which would allow the creation of significant numbers of both market-rate and affordable units, especially in neighborhoods most affected by the existing cap, including the Financial District, Midtown and Hudson Yards.

The proposal, which would end “floor area ratio” caps, passed the state Senate housing committee last week and could be approved as soon as next week, the New York Post reported.

If passed, the bill would be a boost for the mayor’s long-term goal of creating or preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing by 2024.

Critics, though, suggested the bill would especially help developers.

“My fear is it’s going to wind up being a big giveaway to the real-estate industry,”an unnamed Manhattan activist told the Post. “I’m not sure I trust some City Council members not to give away the skyline in exchange for funding to build a park in their neighborhood.” [NYP] — Ariel Stulberg

This could yield even taller towers!

[chris08876]

^^^^^

Mayor Bill de Blasio has backed the measure, which would allow the creation of significant numbers of both market-rate and affordable units, especially in neighborhoods most affected by the existing cap, including the Financial District, Midtown and Hudson Yards.

Can you smell what the rock is cooking? In this case, super talls. Not meth, but super talls.

This will allow for some pretty tall towers (in those select neighborhoods). Best news in terms of zoning/FAR in a long time.

[hunser]

Re: 3-7 West 29th Street, 796ft (243m): 64 floors and 796'.

The King is getting some serious company!

http://www.yimbynews.com/2016/06/gil...th-street.html

[C.]

Originally Posted by hunser

http://therealdeal.com/2016/06/06/ne...esi-buildings/

New state bill would allow more units in resi buildings
De Blasio-backed measure would end “floor area ratio” cap



This could yield even taller towers!

Yay!! This is something I strongly support, but I thought it would fall on deaf ears in Albany.

Then there is this gem today in the WSJ:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-la...nts-1465293601

New York City and other local governments across the region are upset over a provision tucked into the state budget that appears to exempt the Metropolitan Transportation Authority from local laws and zoning rules for any property it redevelops.

Local officials say they are concerned the MTA, with its vast needs to raise revenue to cover its rising costs, could lease land it controls to developers for multistory commercial developments—and without local review.

“It is really a radical change,” said Carl Weisbrod, chairman of the New York City Planning Commission. “It would let the MTA do whatever it wanted irrespective of zoning and community input.”

C'mon MTA - you now have legal authority. Tell Weisbrod and his like to go to hell.

Due to budget pressures, MTA should definitely enter the for-profit real estate development industry. It should do its own planning as the city's process is byzantine, it's what the New York state legislature intended if it quietly slipped in this provision.

[C.]

Should the MTA Be Exempt From The City's Zoning Laws?

City officials are unhappy over a new measure introduced in this year's state budget
BY TANAY WARERKAR JUN 8, 2016, 10:00A

The city is raising an alarm over a new law that may allows the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to build on its property without any review from the local government, the Wall Street Journal reports. The legislation was tucked away in this year's state budget, which was approved on April 1, and it was while conducting a review of that budget that New York City officials came across the new law.

[Swede]

As much as adding density right at stations and going tall appeal to me and bearing in mind how much the MTA could use the money, exempting the MTA from local zoning seems very strange.
Removing the FAR caps seems far more straight forward and even handed.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Swede

As much as adding density right at stations and going tall appeal to me and bearing in mind how much the MTA could use the money, exempting the MTA from local zoning seems very strange.

It's not that uncommon. The Port Authority built the World Trade Center using its immunity to local zoning. Atlantic Yards is also only possible thanks to intervention by the state.

In the age of irrational NIMBYism, ones that would perverse zoning codes written in the 60s to fight against loss of parking at an MTA train stations on Long Island or fear that the new residents may be lower income or minorities that new development would bring, this new policy helps balance things back out. Yes, the highest densities of most cities and towns should be along its rail corridor and at stations. NIMBYism is often times a vocal minority which can prevent politicians from doing the right thing. MTA has the regions transportation needs at its core, and someone in Albany understood the need to solidify their legal rights to create a sound and efficient transportation system. It's definitely a step towards how transit agencies operate in Asia.

[Swede]

I see your points and they do make sense. I agree about how nimbys use planning tools like zoning to stop much needed construction and to stop smart planning. I also agree that the nimbys are a minority that is very vocal (and represent themselves as being the majority - which the media and politicians all too often buy unquestioningly).
It all seems like a stop-gap measure that doesn't fix the underlying problem though. Planning ought to be predictable, democratic and based on what science tells us about how different planning choices affect a place and a city. Don't think I've seen any model that really does that tho. Yet.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Swede

I see your points and they do make sense. I agree about how nimbys use planning tools like zoning to stop much needed construction and to stop smart planning. I also agree that the nimbys are a minority that is very vocal (and represent themselves as being the majority - which the media and politicians all too often buy unquestioningly).
It all seems like a stop-gap measure that doesn't fix the underlying problem though. Planning ought to be predictable, democratic and based on what science tells us about how different planning choices affect a place and a city. Don't think I've seen any model that really does that tho. Yet.

That's what planning is suppose to be, in theory. In reality, it's unpredictable, usually attracts a small vocal minority of disgruntled seniors in the public participation process rather than the wider community, and is anything but science-based due to it being subservient to political whim.

It's a broken process, especially in NYC and the surrounding areas, which I believe is why the state decided to act. Just like Jane Jacobs attacked planning norms in the 60s, there really needs to be a champion today to call out the idiotic processes that exist which harm or stymie a community.

I am a total supporter if transit agencies like MTA were to develop transit-oriented development arms with the ability to do their own land use planning. Public participation could include discussions on transit investments as a direct result of land use decisions with a more regional context rather than leaving all the power to local political hacks who's only concern is appeasing xenophobic NIMBYs to win reelection.

[C.]

So, anyone know what this is?

https://vimeo.com/156615598
• Video Link

[Swede]

That's a vimeo-video. You can only embed youtube videos on SSP. For now.

As for the concept proposed in the tower...
Looks like an architects conceptual idea. That is no where near as revolutionary as he makes it seem. People of all ages living and working together in a single tower has been done. Build it big enough and you'll have people of all ages living there. And preschool. And maybe a school. And offices. A retirement home is entirely possible.
I don't really get what's new to the idea.

[hunser]

Re: 23 Park Row, 691ft (211m)
54 floors and 691'

YIMBY: http://www.yimbynews.com/2016/06/fir...-district.html


23 Park Row, rendering via Primary Capital

[hunser]

Re: 151 East 60th Street

http://archilier.com/projects/151-e-...ise-mixed-use/

151 E 60th Street NYC Super High-Rise Mixed Use

New York, USA

Site Area: 28,619 sf

GFA: 411,700 sf

Height: 1,240 ft

Archilier’s design proposal for 151 E 60th Street on Manhattan’s exclusive Upper East Side is a fresh take in New York’s new super-thin “supertall” skyscraper community. Its inverted tapered form maximizes value by placing the largest floors at the top of the tower while simultaneously angling for the maximize views of Central Park. It also includes numerous non FAR landscaped terraces and loggias, effectively bringing the “park” into the building itself. A limestone and bronze material palette knits the building into its neighborhood at street-level while a sheltered motor court and townhouse lobby provide tranquil points of entry.