Well, as we have seen, the original design of One Vanderbilt envisaged a 65-story tower with 1,414 feet on the roof and 1,514 feet to the top of the spire.
Now One Vanderbilt tower has 58 floors, 1,301 feet on the roof and 1,401 feet to the top of the spire.
So then we could consider for the Roosevelt Hotel site, a 70 story tower, 1,455 feet on the roof and with a spire of 150/200 feet. It would not be bad...
Well, as we have seen, the original design of One Vanderbilt envisaged a 65-story tower with 1,414 feet on the roof and 1,514 feet to the top of the spire.
Now One Vanderbilt tower has 58 floors, 1,301 feet on the roof and 1,401 feet to the top of the spire.
So then we could consider for the Roosevelt Hotel site, a 70 story tower, 1,455 feet on the roof and with a spire of 150/200 feet. It would not be bad...
We don’t know what the design will be. It won’t be the same building, or same type of building as Vanderbilt. As for the height, that’s totally on design, using those protocols shown on the previous post. We just know it will likely be another supertall skyscraper thrown into the mix of the supertall skyline that is New York.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“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.
We don’t know what the design will be. It won’t be the same building, or same type of building as Vanderbilt. As for the height, that’s totally on design, using those protocols shown on the previous post. We just know it will likely be another supertall skyscraper thrown into the mix of the supertall skyline that is New York.
Do you think it’s likely to be mixed use, as they claim? This tower (and even more so BP’s proposed tower at 347 Madison) seem to have small floor plates that appeal to boutique law and financial firms. It seems like 600k-700k sf of office space at the Roosevelt is what would rise if it’s truly mixed use. If that’s the case, I bet it will proceed without an anchor tenant.
Do you think it’s likely to be mixed use, as they claim? This tower (and even more so BP’s proposed tower at 347 Madison) seem to have small floor plates that appeal to boutique law and financial firms.
It has the same footprint as One Vanderbilt. If they say they want a mixed-use tower, there is no reason not to believe them. Also, there was some type of deal with the union as far as reopening some type of hotel on the property.
Quote:
“Pakistan hired us to evaluate the property’s potential as a mixed-use project combining retail, offices, a new hotel, condo apartments and event space all in a single building,” Riguardi said.
”We expect all the major developers and global capital sources to be interested. It will attract the greatest architects. The Roosevelt location is in the hottest part of New York City, close by Grand Central Terminal,” he said.
By the way, there is not a single developer in New York City that has to be sold on the location and potential of the Roosevelt Hotel site. If you haven't already clocked in on that, you're not a serious player on the city's real estate scene.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“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.
Personally, with all of the planned and under construction supertall towers in midtown, I would like to see a slender tower with a lot of setbacks, and a proper spire, not that thing on the Freedom Tower.
It brought to mind the old Miglin Beitler proposal. It doesn't have to be as tall, but tall enough to hold it's own in the midtown barrage.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“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.
One thing that annoys me is how the City arbitrarily chose the limits of FAR development on the midtown east sites. One Vanderbilt has about 1.3 msf (1.7 msf total), with a FAR of 30 while 270 Park has almost 1.9 msf (2.5 msf total), with a FAR of 23. Even more maddening when you consider nearly half the sites around Grand Central that were given the highest building potential are landmarked sites. 270 stands just outside the highest zoning core, despite having connections to Grand Central as well. You could say, well nobody imagined 270 Park would be demolished. But the landmarked buildings certainly won’t be demolished. They should have spread the density to where it could actually be used. But that’s the end of my rant about that.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“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.
It has the same footprint as One Vanderbilt. If they say they want a mixed-use tower, there is no reason not to believe them. Also, there was some type of deal with the union as far as reopening some type of hotel on the property.
By the way, there is not a single developer in New York City that has to be sold on the location and potential of the Roosevelt Hotel site. If you haven't already clocked in on that, you're not a serious player on the city's real estate scene.
The owners had a deal with the hotel union that any new structure would contain a hotel? To the extent that this building will probably have less than 1m sf of offices and will have other uses, I really hope that it’s built on spec. I don’t want to wait five years for it to rise.
The owners had a deal with the hotel union that any new structure would contain a hotel? To the extent that this building will probably have less than 1m sf of offices and will have other uses, I really hope that it’s built on spec. I don’t want to wait five years for it to rise.
The City still has a lease on the property for 2 more years. Besides that, a developer has to be chosen, then an architectural firm to design the proposal. That proposal needs to move through the approvals process. In other words, it’s not getting built tomorrow. Plenty of time to worry about tenants.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“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.
Personally, with all of the planned and under construction supertall towers in midtown, I would like to see a slender tower with a lot of setbacks, and a proper spire, not that thing on the Freedom Tower.
Damn...I agree. Something tall enough to cut through the growing supertall canopy, and really make a statement about Midtown and NY as a whole.
I've thrown something quick together to get an idea of what a more slender 'needle' like building would look like around the Roosevelt area, take a look!
(I feel now as I upload this image for hosting I have gone a bit overboard on the height... Oh well, it was a quick sketch!)
I'm sorry but that looks horrible in my opinion. M-B would have looked good on the Chicago skyline of the early 1990s but that mock up just looks like a clunky sandwiched caricature of the ESB or a redux of the unbuilt Larkin Tower.
__________________ Everything new is old again
There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
I'm sorry but that looks horrible in my opinion. M-B would have looked good on the Chicago skyline of the early 1990s but that mock up just looks like a clunky sandwiched caricature of the ESB or a redux of the unbuilt Larkin Tower.
Wow, I actually think you're right there...now you've said it, it does just look like a cheap Larkin Tower...What kind of development would you like to see here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetscaper
I LOVE it!!
Thanks lol, differing opinions I suppose. It was a quick job so perhaps a more sleek design might work better (MORE SETBACKS!). I was trying to avoid making a skinny OV clone, and I realise the lighting conditions I chose made it tricky to convey material.
__________________ Maybe we become New Yorkers the day we realize that New York will go on without us.- Colson Whitehead
I would like to see something along the lines of 122 Leadenhall. The top level could be a roof top bar & restaurant or something to take advantage of the views
Damn...I agree. Something tall enough to cut through the growing supertall canopy, and really make a statement about Midtown and NY as a whole.
I've thrown something quick together to get an idea of what a more slender 'needle' like building would look like around the Roosevelt area, take a look!
(I feel now as I upload this image for hosting I have gone a bit overboard on the height... Oh well, it was a quick sketch!)
Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. It doesn’t have to be 2,000 ft, but tall enough to stand out from the canopy of supertalls that line the Midtown skyline. I love tgese towers, but they’re all of similar height. This site is small enough, with just enough development rights to build of similar height, unless tgey are going to produce such an “icon” that stands above the others. New York has a history of buildings that stand above the pack, and it’s time somebody started thinking about that. This new building, with its development rights, doesn’t even have to be a supertall, same as One Vanderbilt. But, just like Vanderbilt, the owners are specificly saying they want an iconic tower that marks the skyline. And they can make it so, nothing standing in the way.
Break us out of too many similar spikes on the skyline.
__________________ NEW YORK is Back!
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
Prev
Oh well, it was a quick sketch!)
Linear Mode
