The sheer volume of all those throughout New York City, especially Manhattan, is tremendously exciting. No doubt in my mind though that Tishman Speyer dropped the ball by it's shortsighted focus on functionality and space. Has the right of course to build how they want, but where they will be could have made an impressive exclamation point to the bold vision of a skyward looking Midtown West. It's still a great building, and very distinctive with the ziggurat like cut through and gardens throughout.

But the key of course is just how grand New York's skyward vision is... potentially dozens of 800 ft plus towers, a good portion of them supertalls. The volume and scope is jaw dropping as mentioned... yeah, many places build flashier and higher but few skylines are as impressively organic and fitting as the NYC one. It is the most breathtaking taken overall, and in the coming decade will be even more bold and proud.

TS didn't drop the ball. The Hudson Yards rezoning was put in place specifically so developers could build office towers with larger floorplates. That's it, and it is succeeding faster than was expected. That anybody in New York could be complaining about a need for this tower to be taller is ridiculous. Would we take a taller tower? Who wouldn't. Does the city need this tower to be taller? No, it dies not.

Bingo.

I think the problem is, we are spoiled. We’re in the midst of a building boom not seen since the 1920’s. A 300 meter tower would be big news in any other American city save for Chicago. In NYC, it mostly blends in with surrounding towers.

Still, I think the J.P. Morgan tower is going to be at least as tall as 1VB, if not more so. Both TD Bank and BofA have impressive, skyline changing structures (well, BofA was up until relatively recently), and I’m sure JP Morgan would like to make a statement, especially given it’s close proximity to them.

Also, JP Morgan isn’t renting space, it’s developing the building for itself. They have reason to put something magnificent in the sky.

Exactly. It will be their legacy. We'll see why Foster got that one soon enough (I hope).



Meanwhile, the numbers for 50 Hudson and the Spiral keep leapfrogging each other slightly. This one seems to be pushing away slightly more. Not sure what the final number here will be, but the FAA studies put the corners of the building at 1,064 ft.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...501469&row=395

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...501471&row=397

Nice! :cheers:

Then again, here's where we were at the last zoning diagram...


http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...9Fhytmo.g1.JPG


And now with the latest update available...


http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...yCLQ0VW.d1.JPG



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...zy67JIP.d2.JPG



And here's the elevation view, which makes me believe the FAA numbers are in error, or diagram just hasn't been updated.


http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...HVx1eyQ.d3.JPG

The diagram makes it look like some sort of exploded view Miesian box.

Given then elevation is seems 1031 is the roof height. Lately I've seen 1005 as the height figure for this building so it's still a bit of a height bump :shrug:

hopefully they change the name because its barely waving a hanky at spiraling.

I doubt they change it. That's the whole "gimmick" of the building. It does have its alternative name (the address) like all buildings.

Looking at the graphics, it looks like some mechanical floors were put into the middle. I like that. Adds character.

If it wrapped around one more time... would be such a more complete design :/

I agree with that, plus it would appear a little less bulky. This is being built face to face with another bulky tower 50 Hudson Yards, 1031 ft to 1011 ft. I would have preferred the two towers have a more varied height or be placed more apart. The skyline needs the variations.

But this design, if stretched through one more cycle of the spiral, could look like more of a modern variation of the MetLife North tower that was never built to full height...11 Madison.


http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...ticleLarge.jpg



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...1015141201.png

^ I've never seen MetLife with a square top like that, where did you find this?

That never built tower has way more grace than the Spiral.

Never Built New York...

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/7/10/1755...ital-billboard


http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...flatiron01.jpg




That's because it's stretched up and less bulky. I wouldn't call the existing "stump" gracefull though.

The Spiral is a tower more along the lines of the RCA/GE Building or Pan Am than a soaring tower like the Empire State. It's just a lot taller because it's being built today. There's a whole line of older towers in NY that would be supertalls if built today by default. The Spiral and 50 Hudson go in that class.

A view into the pits...


Michael Lee

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4843/3...f64e66f2_h.jpg

With all the new construction, why hasn't anyone proposed actually finishing the MetLife tower to its intended 1450-1550' height? I'm curious as to the cost vs new construction of a ~1500' tower with the same square footage.

To do it right would be expensive. But also probably worth it.

Credit Suisse HQ occupies most of that building. I worked there ages ago.

It's a very nice tower, and I imagine there would be very high demand for additional space in that location, but maybe there are zoning obstacles.

^ That's one of my longshot dreams.