HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1701  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 6:32 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 43,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BStyles View Post
New York's not getting a 2,000+ footer anytime soon. Even if it were, it would not be on the edge of the island. It's likely to be in the dense cluster of Midtown or Lower Manhattan (or perhaps even in Brooklyn). Once developers get bolder and decide to surpass 1WTC's spire height then perhaps.
I think we're getting beyond the point here. Developers in the city don't build to make bold statements, they want to make money. Demand will drive what gets built, and developers will build what makes sense. The supertalls rising along 57th Street, for example, are being built that tall because of the money developers can make off of the sky high apartments with Central Park views. This tower is as tall as it is because it is a massive tower. With smaller floorplates, it could be higher, but that defeats the purpose. Related will make as much money from the planned observation deck as it would have at twice that height. The complications of building large office plates that high, as well as the means to move the thousands that would work up there are another thing entirely.
__________________
NEW YORK heals.

“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
     
     
  #1702  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 9:06 PM
Mr Saturn64's Avatar
Mr Saturn64 Mr Saturn64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Philly
Posts: 954
Unfortunately, I don't see a 2000 footer coming up anywhere outside of China and the Middle East anytime soon. But I'd say if it did happen in the U.S, it would more likely to be in Chicago than New York, for the above reasons. That, and the fact that the Chicago Spire was proposed, and now there's the Gateway Tower, although that seems more like a vision than a viable proposal at the moment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1703  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 9:32 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
Other countries don't have to deal with our FCC regulations and other beaurocracy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1704  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 9:50 PM
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy View Post
Other countries don't have to deal with our FCC regulations and other beaurocracy.
while the FCC is an overbearing nanny-state bureaucracy, it doesn't impede the construction of skyscrapers.
the overbearing nanny-state bureaucracy that impedes skyscraper construction is the FAA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1705  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 10:49 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 43,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
the overbearing nanny-state bureaucracy that impedes skyscraper construction is the FAA.
It's not the FAA that's keeping a 2,000 ft tower from being built. It's economics.


Eric Konon





This one is older, but it's the first one where I can see 30 Hudson and the Tower Verre rising in one shot (111 is also visible if you look hard)...


Brendan Bannister

__________________
NEW YORK heals.

“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.

Last edited by NYguy; Dec 20, 2016 at 11:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1706  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 3:26 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
Yes, I meant the FAA.
But it's more than economics. It's developers with big plans.
30 Hudson will be huge, but what's even more impressive is the entire west side.
That's what I'm talkin' about!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1707  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 4:06 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 20,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64 View Post
Unfortunately, I don't see a 2000 footer coming up anywhere outside of China and the Middle East anytime soon. But I'd say if it did happen in the U.S, it would more likely to be in Chicago than New York, for the above reasons.
While I have no clue if there will be a 2,000 foot tower in the U.S., and don't see why it matters much one way or the other, Chicago would be a somewhat unlikely candidate.

Construction costs soar like crazy over about 700 ft. (mostly because floorplates become tiny because of all the needed elevator space), necessitating absolutely outrageous per square foot sales prices. Chicago isn't a particularly expensive city, and doesn't have extreme prices for high end real estate, nor does it have the global superrich contingent, so wouldn't be an obvious location for superskinny supertalls.

NYC would be the most logical place for such a tower, and then maybe SF, Miami, LA, in theory. But I think, if we ever crossed this threshold, there would be a number of 2,000 ft. towers in NYC before it filtered to other cities, simply because sales prices for superluxury RE are so much higher in NYC (like 2-3x that of the next most expensive U.S. cities).

But do the superrich even want such extreme RE? It isn't clear. The whole point of living high in the sky is views, and I'm not sure the views are better from 2,000 ft. than from 1,000 ft. I would argue they're probably worse, because you're just seeing sky. I would guess your typical billionaire is very happy with the view from somewhere like 220 CPS, which is "only" 952 ft., but has garnered the highest condo sales prices on the planet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1708  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 8:21 PM
Mr Saturn64's Avatar
Mr Saturn64 Mr Saturn64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Philly
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
While I have no clue if there will be a 2,000 foot tower in the U.S., and don't see why it matters much one way or the other, Chicago would be a somewhat unlikely candidate.

Construction costs soar like crazy over about 700 ft. (mostly because floorplates become tiny because of all the needed elevator space), necessitating absolutely outrageous per square foot sales prices. Chicago isn't a particularly expensive city, and doesn't have extreme prices for high end real estate, nor does it have the global superrich contingent, so wouldn't be an obvious location for superskinny supertalls.

NYC would be the most logical place for such a tower, and then maybe SF, Miami, LA, in theory. But I think, if we ever crossed this threshold, there would be a number of 2,000 ft. towers in NYC before it filtered to other cities, simply because sales prices for superluxury RE are so much higher in NYC (like 2-3x that of the next most expensive U.S. cities).

But do the superrich even want such extreme RE? It isn't clear. The whole point of living high in the sky is views, and I'm not sure the views are better from 2,000 ft. than from 1,000 ft. I would argue they're probably worse, because you're just seeing sky. I would guess your typical billionaire is very happy with the view from somewhere like 220 CPS, which is "only" 952 ft., but has garnered the highest condo sales prices on the planet.
No one ever said it would need to be super skinny. Although the more I think about it, the more I'd say L.A and New York would be the most likely. It wouldn't be San Francisco because of the earthquake threat, and the whole issue with building foundations seen at the Millennium Tower. If I recall correctly, Miami has been having FAA issues with its skyscrapers.

New York already has the vast array of skyscrapers it does, and Manhattan isn't close enough to LaGuardia or any other airport to get the FAA involved. The only threat to L.A would be earthquakes, but it doesn't have the same issues with the foundations that San Francisco does (Millennium Tower), and LAX is pretty far from downtown L.A.

But with Chicago, we have seen several serious attempts to build a 2,000 footer, so there are people who have that ambition. This would include the Chicago Spire as well as others like the Skyneedle from the 1980s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1709  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 4:37 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 20,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64 View Post
No one ever said it would need to be super skinny.
But it would need to be super-skinny. Extreme high end real estate is all about exclusivity. You aren't building a fat 2,000 foot residential tower; that would be insanely expensive, would require thousands of units, and would defeat the whole purpose.

And there's no bank financing a project that requires half the world's billionaires to buy a unit; that's insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64 View Post
Although the more I think about it, the more I'd say L.A and New York would be the most likely. It wouldn't be San Francisco because of the earthquake threat, and the whole issue with building foundations seen at the Millennium Tower.
I don't see what the SF "earthquake threat" has to do with anything. There is nowhere safer than a new construction tower if there ever were a mega-SF earthquake. Plenty of other earthquake-prone cities are much more highrise-oriented than SF. Istanbul, Santiago, Tokyo, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64 View Post
But with Chicago, we have seen several serious attempts to build a 2,000 footer, so there are people who have that ambition. This would include the Chicago Spire as well as others like the Skyneedle from the 1980s.
Neither of these projects were "serious attempts" The Skyneedle was an office building proposal from 30 years ago, and the Chicago Spire was just a wacky idea from an Irish carpenter who had never built a highrise in his life. I doubt anyone in the local RE industry actually thought these buildings would ever be built.

And most cities have such wacky proposals. Trump had multiple proposals for such towers in NYC back in the 80's. Even Newark, NJ had such a crazy proposal a few years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1710  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 5:59 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
But it would need to be super-skinny. Extreme high end real estate is all about exclusivity. You aren't building a fat 2,000 foot residential tower; that would be insanely expensive, would require thousands of units, and would defeat the whole purpose.

And there's no bank financing a project that requires half the world's billionaires to buy a unit; that's insane.

I don't see what the SF "earthquake threat" has to do with anything. There is nowhere safer than a new construction tower if there ever were a mega-SF earthquake. Plenty of other earthquake-prone cities are much more highrise-oriented than SF. Istanbul, Santiago, Tokyo, etc.


Neither of these projects were "serious attempts" The Skyneedle was an office building proposal from 30 years ago, and the Chicago Spire was just a wacky idea from an Irish carpenter who had never built a highrise in his life. I doubt anyone in the local RE industry actually thought these buildings would ever be built.

And most cities have such wacky proposals. Trump had multiple proposals for such towers in NYC back in the 80's. Even Newark, NJ had such a crazy proposal a few years ago.
New York is probably the only U.S. city where the economics of a 2,000 ft tower could even remotely make sense. They don't make sense in Chicago. And, yes, it would need to be super-skinny. Mixed use and extreme high end residential haven't historically mixed well, but a hotel or commercial/business component could perhaps help with the height. Maybe a high end brand like the 4 Seasons? Worked for 30 Park Place downtown, but it's not really the same demographic even though the 30 Park Place residents are also wealthy and the condos terrific.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1711  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 9:23 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
New York is probably the only U.S. city where the economics of a 2,000 ft tower could even remotely make sense. They don't make sense in Chicago. And, yes, it would need to be super-skinny. Mixed use and extreme high end residential haven't historically mixed well, but a hotel or commercial/business component could perhaps help with the height. Maybe a high end brand like the 4 Seasons? Worked for 30 Park Place downtown, but it's not really the same demographic even though the 30 Park Place residents are also wealthy and the condos terrific.
I doubt there is anywhere in the WORLD where the Economics of a 2000ft tower make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1712  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 10:58 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
I doubt there is anywhere in the WORLD where the Economics of a 2000ft tower make sense.
Probably not. Towers like the Burj Khalifa (2,722 ft) are all about ego and grandstanding and having more money than sense. But they exist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1713  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2016, 12:32 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
ψ Sailor of the Mind ψ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 33,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
I doubt there is anywhere in the WORLD where the Economics of a 2000ft tower make sense.
For NY, a mixed used would be the best type for a 600m tower. Residential, office, or possibly residential + hotel. With or without spire. If they could make a megatall with 2000 units, affordable, throw in some office for long term income, yeah, I think it could work.

Realistically, a 2000 ft tower would make sense in Queens if we are talking strictly for soft cost purposes.

Housing is needed. You get a tower with 2000 plus units in it, and price it in a way where its affordable, but has the right amount of units at a cost to make it profitable, and it could work. Would it look aesthetically pleasing...? That's a different question. Regardless, any tower over 500m will change the skyline(s) dynamics big time. I say skyline(s) with an "S" because we have multiple ones.

Look at Silverstein's West Side tower which unfortunately he dropped. Had 1100 + units in it at over 300m. It could work, but developers and the zoning need to think bigger.

The 600k to 3 million market is on fire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1714  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2016, 4:09 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Housing is needed. You get a tower with 2000 plus units in it, and price it in a way where its affordable, but has the right amount of units at a cost to make it profitable, and it could work.
You don't get any more housing out of a 2000ft tower. The taller you get the less usable room each floor has due to all the elevators and columns. A tower that is 2000ft tall can't actually house any more people. Just look how few units all these new supertalls have. Obviously that's partially because they are ultra-luxury and in theory you could put more small units, but not as many more as you think because if you start putting more units then you need more elevators too which cuts out a lot of units. Tall towers are 100% about pride, they do nothing to improve density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1715  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2016, 4:23 AM
artspook's Avatar
artspook artspook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: manhattan
Posts: 594
"Tall towers are 100% about pride, they do nothing to improve density."
- Browntown

towers are the definition of density . .
and pray, make them "Proud" ! . .
__________________
artSpook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1716  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2016, 6:43 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by artspook View Post
towers are the definition of density . .
and pray, make them "Proud" ! . .
That statement is just absolutely untrue. A lot of these supertalls have only a few hundred residents (and that's assuming people actually live in all the residences which isn't the case either). There is a diminishing return to height and past a certain point it actually becomes negative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1717  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2016, 1:32 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
3 Sutton Place is back from the dead! Formerly at 1,000' it's now 844'. We lost a potential supertall, but at least we are getting a tower here.

-------------------------

Re: 125 Greenwich Street (Shvo) - latest renderings: https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...p-details/7583

EDIT: Height has been reduced from 1,017' to 898'. Another supertall 'lost' but in this case I'm pretty glad this abomination won't be standing that tall on the skyline ...







Last edited by hunser; Dec 30, 2016 at 1:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1718  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2016, 1:11 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
My prediction for 2017:



- completed
- under construction
- in preparation
- on hold


1. One World Trade Center, 1,776ft (541m) [roof 1,368ft / 417m]
2. Central Park Tower, 1,550ft (472m)
3. One Vanderbilt Place, 1,501ft (458m) [roof 1,401ft / 427m] [height change likely]
4. 111 West 57th Street, 1,438ft (438m)
5. 80 South Street, 1,438ft (438m)
6. 432 Park Avenue, 1,397ft (426m)
7. Two World Trade Center, 1,323ft (403m)
8. 30 Hudson Yards, 1,296ft (395m)
9. Empire State Building, 1,250ft (381m) [antenna 1,454ft / 443m]
10. Two Manhattan West, 1,216ft (371m) [height change likely]
11. Bank of America Tower, 1,200ft (366m) [roof 945ft / 288m]
12. 45 Broad Street, 1,127ft (344m)
13. Three World Trade Center, 1,080ft (329m)
14. 340 Flatbush Avenue, 1,066ft (325m)
15. Tower Verre, 1,050ft (320m)
16. The Girasole, 1,050ft (320m)
17. Chrysler Building, 1,046ft (319m) [roof 925ft / 282m]
18. New York Times Tower, 1,046ft (319m) [roof 745ft / 227m]
19. 35 Hudson Yards, 1,039ft (317m)
20. One57, 1,005ft (306m)
21. The Spiral, 1,005ft (306m)
22. 247 Cherry Street, 986ft (301m)
23. 50 Hudson Yards, 985ft (300m)


-------------------------------------

Happy New Year everyone! May we have another year full of (new) shiny supertalls going up! And also thanks to everybody who contributed here!




Last edited by hunser; Dec 31, 2016 at 5:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1719  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2017, 2:34 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Tower Verre progress:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
YIMBY user JC_Heights made a cool rendering. Credit to ILNY for original photo used for the rendering.


Credit: JC_Heights
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1720  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2017, 3:09 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 43,114
With all of the supertowers going up - something we now take for granted - its worth taking a moment to appreciate all of the skyscrapers we already have. I recently added to my collection of city and skyscraper books "NY Skyscrapers", the 2016 edition by Dirk Stichweh. This book does a great job of exploring the city's skyscrapers through the ages, as well as some of our recently completed supertalls like One57 and 432 Park Avenue. It also touches on some of the supertalls currently under construction. It's the most complete collection to date on the rich skyscraper history and legacy that only New York City has so much of. I highly recommend it to any skyscraper fan. We all need to look up more, and not just at what's under construction.


__________________
NEW YORK heals.

“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
     
     
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 8:31 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.