SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | The Spiral (509 W. 34th) | 1,041 FT | 66 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=184944)

NYguy Feb 19, 2014 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx (Post 6458734)
The choice of architect to study this building says a lot about its current status - ie, we aren't even close to reality yet. Not to knock MJM+A, but some south Florida hotels and interior renovations don't exactly prepare you for a 100+ story mega tower. Talk to me when we see someone on board with experience in this department. Until then this is just brokers fishing for a sale.

It is conceptual. But yeah, no need for you to check back on this thread for a while.


Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6458810)
This is untrue; the marketing by the owner and broker may reflect what could rise, but in reality, the point is to generate hype so the property sells for more than it would otherwise.

Yes, the would like to bring more attention to this property (why wouldn't they?), even though it is in the Hudson Yards area that is already hot on the map for development. The only thing it would do more than otherwise, the plan is particularly geared for the supertall community, someone who could build this tower in particular. Of course it won't be the same exact building - it's conceptual.

But I don't see what you're so twisted up about. It's a plan (that's evolving), but not a proposal at this point, which is why we haven't changed the information in the thread.


http://www.property-report.com/mjma-...st-tower-33562

Quote:

“Hudson Spire reflects the dawn of a new age, emphasising the global character of New York City as a business hub, a tourist destination, and the many foreign residents who now call it home,” Macaluso said. ”Hudson Spire will be a welcome addition to the Manhattan skyline, and to the spirit of the city itself.”

When they get a buyer, we'll see where it goes from there. In the meantime...

manchester united Mar 1, 2014 8:40 PM

To correct the title : 110 floors and 1800 foot. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11578927.htm

NYguy Mar 3, 2014 1:03 AM

More of the same...


http://www.constructiondive.com/news...in-nyc/231885/

Fight for nation's tallest tower in NYC

By Ron Gallagher
February 25, 2014


Quote:

Dive Brief:

◦One World Trade, the downtown New York City tower on the site of the 9/11 attacks, took the title of tallest U.S. building from Chicago in a decision last year. But it looks like it will only get to enjoy the crown for the construction equivalent of a "New York minute."

◦In the Hudson Yards project on Manhattan's West Side, the Rosenthal family and its real estate brokers, Massey Knakal, had MJM + A Architects whip up plans for an 1,800-foot tower that would push 24 feet above the current champ's 1,776 feet.

◦In the plan, Hudson Spire would be 110 stories and 1.2 million square feet, with retail, offices, three hotels, and 25 floors of residential space. It would taper from 100 feet wide at the bottom to 75 feet at the top and have numerous angles and differences in glass finishes.

Dive Insight:

Who might build Hudson Spire is not clear. Before the announcement that MJM + A had done the design, there was a report that that the Rosenthals were looking to sell their parcel. Whether they are looking to sell the project or just the parcel with the tower is not stated. It also isn't stated whether the spire calls for any rooftop antennas, which figured in the debate around whether One World Trade was really the tallest "building."

ILNY Mar 3, 2014 4:52 AM

^ 1 WTC has 104 stories and top floor is at 1268 ft and 1800 ft tower will "only" have 6 more stories? How tall the strories will be?

NYguy Mar 3, 2014 7:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6476456)
^ 1 WTC has 104 stories and top floor is at 1268 ft and 1800 ft tower will "only" have 6 more stories? How tall the strories will be?

The magic of ceiling heights. The Nordstrom tower was supposed to be 1,550 ft with just 88 floors. We really can't judge tower heights based on floor counts anymore. The Freedom Tower doesn't really have 104 floors btw.

manchester united Mar 3, 2014 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6476456)
^ 1 WTC has 104 stories and top floor is at 1268 ft and 1800 ft tower will "only" have 6 more stories? How tall the strories will be?

1 WTC has 85 floors and Hudson Spire will have 110 REAL FLOORS !!!!!

P.S. To change the title please ( 1800 foot / 110 floors ).:tup:

Hypothalamus Mar 6, 2014 7:26 PM

New York YIMBY:

New Rendering: Hudson Spire
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON MARCH 6TH 2014 AT 6:00 AM

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...dsonspire3.jpg
Hudson Spire + The Hudson Yards -- image originally from Related

Quote:

Yet another rendering is out for the ‘Hudson Spire‘ development, and in an ironic twist, the fan-created image is better than anything official that has been released so far, showing the site within the context of its future neighbors. The reader-submitted illustration uses one of Related’s previously-released Hudson Yards renderings as its base.
...
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...dsonspire1.jpg

1Boston Mar 6, 2014 9:12 PM

Not a fan of that, especially since it takes all the attention away from 30 Hudson yards due to just sheer size. I say this trades places with tower verre.

JayPro Mar 6, 2014 9:33 PM

Okay.
1. Can we *please* stop calling this overdone-motif slant-roofed, plain relective-glass, Manute Bol-sized version of the RCA/GE Building with a drinking straw plunged on tip a spire?
2. Why is fan-art, i.e. what this render essentially is, beating to the punch the putative architects of record for this thing in an e-journal of otensibly decent reputation??

If you're gonna call it a *spire*, make sure you know thoroughly the meaning of what you wish to build. If you want a *slab n' a straw*, well.........

I used to draw 100x better buildings in 8th grade art class freehand.

NYguy Mar 6, 2014 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubeworm (Post 6481947)



Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Boston (Post 6482136)
Not a fan of that, especially since it takes all the attention away from 30 Hudson yards due to just sheer size. I say this trades places with tower verre.


30 Hudson Yards will be in a forest of tall buildings anyway, it's not going to stand out like you think it will. What ultimately gets built on the site won't be the rendering of the tower we have all seen. But if you want to see something truly stand out in the Hudson Yards, it will have to be a tower as tall.

babybackribs2314 Mar 6, 2014 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6482166)
Okay.
1. Can we *please* stop calling this overdone-motif slant-roofed, plain relective-glass, Manute Bol-sized version of the RCA/GE Building with a drinking straw plunged on tip a spire?
2. Why is fan-art, i.e. what this render essentially is, beating to the punch the architects of record for this thing in an e-publication of otensibly decent reputation??

If you're gonna call it a *spire*, make sure you know thoroughly the meaning of what you wish to build. If you want a *slab n' a straw*, well.........

I used to draw 100x better buildings in 8th grade art class freehand.

A) there are no real architects of record, because the tower isn't even an actual proposal, and MJM + A is hardly a firm
B) the 'architects of record' have crap renderings, and the 'fan-art' -- which it IS called in the post -- is significantly better than anything released by Massey Knakal so far
C) if you're going to criticize YIMBY you should spell 'ostensibly' correctly

JayPro Mar 7, 2014 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6482422)
A) there are no real architects of record, because the tower isn't even an actual proposal, and MJM + A is hardly a firm
B) the 'architects of record' have crap renderings, and the 'fan-art' -- which it IS called in the post -- is significantly better than anything released by Massey Knakal so far
C) if you're going to criticize YIMBY you should spell 'ostensibly' correctly

I concede points A and B, since I haven't had quite that much time to sit and digest all the minutiae relative to these threads over the past 7 months plus, what with radically adjusting to new living situations since January...plus all the other almost once-a-week shitstorms my father bequeathed to me and my family literally since the day of his passing in July. :(

Okay...C happened because the I missed the S key first time around and I got detained before I could proofread. :cool:

Zapatan Mar 7, 2014 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6482422)
A) there are no real architects of record, because the tower isn't even an actual proposal, and MJM + A is hardly a firm

I totally thought it was when I first opened the thread but I guess for the time being it's too good to be true.

But then again all of the 350-400+meter buildings going up in NY now would have been thought to be too good to be true in the past and they're becoming a reality. So you never know, maybe someday NYC will see something like this. :yes:

Perklol Mar 7, 2014 6:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6448364)
No, it is not enticing enough to get a site up, it is a simple marketing ploy.

The idea that this site will rise 1,800' is ludicrous. It only has 1.2 MSF -- less than Nordstrom Tower, more than One57, but likely not enough to justify anything above 1,200'. If that.

True. I wonder where they got that number from. It didn't include the air rights from the other property owners, did it? Also I was wondering if it would be a good idea to build on landfill..

Zapatan Mar 7, 2014 6:29 AM

Well, said building would be very skinny judging from renderings. I think the 1800' could be to the top of a spire. if it were as skinny as Nordstrom or even skinnier it could rise to 1400' occupied portion with a crown to 1550 or so and then a 250 foot spire.

A lot of the pictures make it look like it's something like that.

NYguy Mar 7, 2014 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6482422)
A) there are no real architects of record, because the tower isn't even an actual proposal, and MJM + A is hardly a firm
B) the 'architects of record' have crap renderings, and the 'fan-art' -- which it IS called in the post -- is significantly better than anything released by Massey Knakal so far
C) if you're going to criticize YIMBY you should spell 'ostensibly' correctly


Again, you are going way overboard with the personal criticism. They are a firm that was hired to do the job. It is a conceptual rendering of the tower that could be built.

As far as the tower being thin, it wasn't too long ago many would have laughed at the idea of towers like 432 Park and 111 W. 57th being built, and yet here they are.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154740760/medium.jpg



If it doesn't interest you, or you don't think it could be built, that's fine. You don't have to participate in the convo, but I would lay off the personal attacks.

babybackribs2314 Mar 7, 2014 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6483393)
Again, you are going way overboard with the personal criticism. They are a firm that was hired to do the job. It is a conceptual rendering of the tower that could be built.

As far as the tower being thin, it wasn't too long ago many would have laughed at the idea of towers like 432 Park and 111 W. 57th being built, and yet here they are.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154740760/medium.jpg



If it doesn't interest you, or you don't think it could be built, that's fine. You don't have to participate in the convo, but I would lay off the personal attacks.

Please direct me to where I made a personal attack or criticized anyone in particular; JayPro attacked MY credibility, all I said was that there are no real plans. If you can find a website for MJM + A, please direct me to it, because they definitely don't have one -- and MK simply 'commissioned' them for marketing purposes. I would know, as I am in the loop.

This is seriously ridiculous; see JayPro's attack on YIMBY/me. And then *I* get chastised for a rebuttal that was anything but offensive?

"2. Why is fan-art, i.e. what this render essentially is, beating to the punch the putative architects of record for this thing in an e-journal of otensibly decent reputation??"

Hypothalamus Mar 7, 2014 9:46 PM

There should have never been a problem in the first place with fan-art in a skyscraper website made for skyscraper FANS. Keep up the great coverage babyback! Lets stay chill now pretty please...everyone.

JayPro Mar 7, 2014 10:58 PM

My piece:
It would appear to me that where I apparently overstepped a line and raised a hackle or three is where I used a certain adjective to apparently chuck rocks at *one part of an article* in a larger publication.
Admittedly, if I had followed *every singly bleeding detail* of this thread--but alas *not* because of the personal hardships aformentioned--I would have gladl--and long since--repented of/recanted/recasted/recouched things justifiably percieved as wrong or ad hominem.
I should like to think that after an admittedly scant 800 posts of mostly articulate observations in this field, I've tried to help keep the level of discourse marginally civil for everyone here.
At the same time, though, I'm not inclined to let anyone convince me that what I strenuously insist is an accidental misreading of the YIMBY article here discussed is in any way malicious.
Any slight or offense meant or taken I leave to the rest of you to decide. I meant none and I have more important things in life to consider than to take any.
Piece said.

babybackribs2314 Mar 7, 2014 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6484098)
My piece:
It would appear to me that where I apparently overstepped a line and raised a hackle or three is where I used a certain adjective to apparently chuck rocks at *one part of an article* in a larger publication.
Admittedly, if I had followed *every singly bleeding detail* of this thread--but alas *not* because of the personal hardships aformentioned--I would have gladl--and long since--repented of/recanted/recasted/recouched things justifiably percieved as wrong or ad hominem.
I should like to think that after an admittedly scant 800 posts of mostly articulate observations in this field, I've tried to help keep the level of discourse marginally civil for everyone here.
At the same time, though, I'm not inclined to let anyone convince me that what I strenuously insist is an accidental misreading of the YIMBY article here discussed is in any way malicious.
Any slight or offense meant or taken I leave to the rest of you to decide. I meant none and I have more important things in life to consider than to take any.
Piece said.

No offense taken, thank you for clearing that up. All good. :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:06 AM.

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