NEW YORK | 418 11th Ave | FT | FLOORS

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

+1


I think we're in the minority here though. Most of the height foamers on this forum are squirting their pants over this while ignorring how completely disconcerting this tower would be. It's like a cruise ship with a huge section of the hull missing and having everyone tell you its supposed to be that way and no need to worry and whats wrong with you for thinking something is messed up about that and what don't you like the looks of a ship will a hole in the side? It ain't natural.

Yeah, except it's not a cruise ship with no intention to float in the water.
It's Manhattan, NYC, United States. The year is 2021. You don't live in a forest, in a hut made out of gathered wood eating whatever berries you come across.
Almost nothing you come across in your day to day life can be considered "natural". (also this seems to be a current trend for some reason, but the word natural does not mean "good". And artificial doesn't mean "bad" Anthrax is natural. Cyanide is natural. etc)
Skyscrapers themselves aren't natural. Neither are any buildings with even an ounce of complexity to them.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

+1


I think we're in the minority here though. Most of the height foamers on this forum are squirting their pants over this while ignorring how completely disconcerting this tower would be. It's like a cruise ship with a huge section of the hull missing and having everyone tell you its supposed to be that way and no need to worry and whats wrong with you for thinking something is messed up about that and what don't you like the looks of a ship will a hole in the side? It ain't natural.

I think it’s prudent to say that I believe you are articulate enough to get your point across without insulting fellow forumers. The beginning of your statement made me discredit anything you were trying to say.

[MercurySky]

The materials and design are good. If it was a tall box then it would look great unfortunately the upside down part is a major factor in why myself and others don't like it.

[NYguy]

I get that some people are uncomfortable with unconventionality, some even afraid of it. But it’s just that. Something that doesn’t conform to what you’re used to seeing. This tower is in many ways a lot like the programming for Tower Fifth, the constraints on the lot pushing the bulk of the tower into the sky. Whereas Tower Fifth presents it’s form as a box, the increasing cantilevers here put more of the space - therefore the people - closer to the top. If built, it would truly be a building head and shoulders above the others in the area.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Most of the height foamers on this forum are squirting their pants over this while ignorring how completely disconcerting this tower would be. It's like a cruise ship with a huge section of the hull missing and having everyone tell you its supposed to be that way and no need to worry and whats wrong with you for thinking something is messed up about that and what don't you like the looks of a ship will a hole in the side? It ain't natural.

You’re as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, even if you are the only one. But unless you’re telling me that it technoligically couldn’t be built, then your fears are just that. It’s 2021. Do I think it’s designed as a New York tower. No. That would be 175 Park. But I do think this would be a nice tower.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Yeah, except it's not a cruise ship with no intention to float in the water.
It's Manhattan, NYC, United States. The year is 2021. You don't live in a forest, in a hut made out of gathered wood eating whatever berries you come across.
Almost nothing you come across in your day to day life can be considered "natural". (also this seems to be a current trend for some reason, but the word natural does not mean "good". And artificial doesn't mean "bad" Anthrax is natural. Cyanide is natural. etc)
Skyscrapers themselves aren't natural. Neither are any buildings with even an ounce of complexity to them.

Get a grip fella...

[Busy Bee]

Alright...since we're on a roll here I'm going to say something really outrageous. I'm not sure this site SHOULD be built on at all. I have a gnawing suspicion that from a transportation planning point of view we are seriously f***ing ourselves by eliminating the possibility of adding a second track to the Amtrak, and ideally future Metro-North Hudson Line, Empire Connection tunnel which would increase capacity into and out of Penn (and any future possibility of through running services). If you ask me what is more important to the future of the metropolitan areas economy, more transport infrastructure or an upside down skyscraper required to use half the sites footprint due to easements, I know what my answer is. Though I suppose truth be told I'm more of a transport strategist than a height foamer.

[NYguy]

Well, you’re wrong about the upside down skyscraper. One thing the city and state gets right usctge economic development. There’s a reason both the Hudson Yards and Midtown East are booming with new development. They were wise enough to realize it was needed, and put the zoning in place to make it happen. We won’t have to worry about transportation into the city if there’s nothing to transit to.

[Busy Bee]

Isn't that objection a bit broad? Notice I didn't say I was against Hudson Yards. Why would anyone say that? I only suggested that maybe this one lot really isn't suited for a mega skyscraper and the state should have the foresight to identify a key potential transportation asset key to future economic growth.

Obviously this is getting into the weeds, but when Amtrak built the connection tunnel in the 80's why they didn't build it as two tracks is beyond me. Well actually I do know that. Amtrak and the MTA weren't on the same page as to how important that link would be and it was about ten years before MTA planners plotted a vision for ESA Phase 2 which would bring some Hudson Line trains into Penn over the Empire Connection.

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You’re as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, even if you are the only one.

Your entitled to that opinion even though it's factually wrong.

[Zapatan]

Will we ever get to see any other proposals? What are the odds one of them may be chosen instead / I'm hoping they could also be ~500 meters.

This is a great site for something to tower over HY.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Will we ever get to see any other proposals? What are the odds one of them may be chosen instead / I'm hoping they could also be ~500 meters.

This is a great site for something to tower over HY.

It's going to be up to their discretion. Ultimately, remember, it will depend on what works and what is feasible. I don't think we can assign probabilities at the moment because it seems at this point that there is no real direction in the sense of what is a winner and what isn't. But in time, there may.

On the bright side, its good this is being developed (this parcel). And the prospects of it possibly eclipsing 30 Hudson are finger-crossing worthy. Can't wait for HY PII on a side note.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Alright...since we're on a roll here I'm going to say something really outrageous. I'm not sure this site SHOULD be built on at all. I have a gnawing suspicion that from a transportation planning point of view we are seriously f***ing ourselves by eliminating the possibility of adding a second track to the Amtrak, and ideally future Metro-North Hudson Line, Empire Connection tunnel which would increase capacity into and out of Penn (and any future possibility of through running services). If you ask me what is more important to the future of the metropolitan areas economy, more transport infrastructure or an upside down skyscraper required to use half the sites footprint due to easements, I know what my answer is. Though I suppose truth be told I'm more of a transport strategist than a height foamer.

Damnn i hadnt thought of this.. 100% agree.

Anything that goes up here should be required to be built to accommodate a future track expansion

[Raysiri]

Well, it’s better if Adjaye Associates add another skyscraper but a bit shorter in height and shape like a normal upward staircase rather than upside down.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Damnn i hadnt thought of this.. 100% agree.

Anything that goes up here should be required to be built to accommodate a future track expansion

If it's even possible at this point, which is something I don't definitively know. Detailed information about the tunnel is extremely difficult to procure from Amtrak or anywhere online and its unclear whether any provision was made with the towers already built to accommodate a wider easement for a second track. IMO, ideally as Amtrak Empire Service does not layover at Sunnyside (Penn is terminal station) and any kind of future high[er] speed rail along its route should go in and out of GCT and the tracks currently used at Penn freed up for M-N split Hudson Line service to Penn along the Empire Connection. This would of course include electrification from the Spuyten Duyvil curve (and ideally a tunnel replacing the old swing bridge) as well as new stations at 125th and 62nd as per vision plans (as well as a justifiable Hudson Yards station under the park, passage connected to the 7 station station --- of course it would have been a hell of lot cheaper to build such a station BEFORE you cap it with a park). This would free up Penn capacity that MIGHT negate the need for a 2-track tunnel if it does prove impossible from an engineering standpoint.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

Your entitled to that opinion even though it's factually wrong.

Don’t be an idiot for the sake of being an idiot. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, and that’s fact.

[NYguy]

NOVEMBER 3, 2021



The trains roar right through the middle if this site. Yet another extraordinary site a developer will have to build over and around to get a new skyscraper up in the city.

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Anything that goes up here should be required to be built to accommodate a future track expansion

Not sure what type if track expansion you mean, but this site is right at the 7 train station. Amtrak runs beneath it on it’s journey north.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not sure what type if track expansion you mean, but this site is right at the 7 train station. Amtrak runs beneath it on it’s journey north.

He's referring to the Amtrak tunnel extensively refferenced just a few posts above. You should probably read them.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

He's referring to the Amtrak tunnel extensively refferenced just a few posts above. You should probably read them.

Then you should probably read mine. Amtrak doesn’t need any track expansion there, you know, because it’s a tunnel. If you are suggesting they put a station there, then you really don’t know much about the site.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Then you should probably read mine. Amtrak doesn’t need any track expansion there, you know, because it’s a tunnel. If you are suggesting they put a station there, then you really don’t know much about the site.

Amtrak owned Empire Connection tunnel is a single track. ESA phase 2 plans call for some Metro-North Hudson Line trains to divert at Spuyten Duyvil along the Empire Connection and terminate at Penn. A single track tunnel strains Penn capacity unless trains are through run to Sunnyside with the addition of Metro- North usage. Amtrak never worked with the MTA that I know of to plan for tunnel capacity improvements though ive read secondhand knowledge on esoteric transit forums that a possible second tunnel track was possibly accommodated for in the Amtrak easement profile, though the easement graphic diagram for this site suggests otherwise. Whether or not with the current building out of Hudson Yards it would be feasible at this point is unknown. This brings me back to my original comment concerning transportation priorities regarding this site. I beleive the best solution might be living with the current single track tunnel but arranging an agreement with Amtrak to move current and any future high[er] speed upstate Empire or Montreal services to Grand Central (like existed pre-1988) after capacity is freed up after ESA New Haven / Penn service commences and have the MTA take ownership of the Empire Connection removing any operation constraints. And yes if the west side Empire Connection is electrified and used for Metro-North Hudson Line split service to Penn (and includes new stations at 125th and 62nd on the UWS) there is actually an opportunity for a below grade Hudson Yards station between 36th and 41st, under the future park, in the current Empire Connection r.o.w. that could in theory be connected by seamless passageway to the 7 train Hudson Yards station mezzanine. Some M-N trains could even terminate there on a couple pocket tracks if Penn platform constraints warranted it.

Just for clarity, I'm not sure how the in depth concept I'm laying out here could be misunderstood as ignorant. Your confusion over what it is that I'm saying leads me to wonder about your depth of knowledge on the subject or your ability to envision how transport needs and development needs are interacting at Hudson Yards.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Come on people, we can do without the passive aggressive nonsense. lets find our manners and have a constructive conversation.