HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

53W53 in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram
New York Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #941  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 5:07 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,310
Is this a denial, or a conditional approval?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #942  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 6:40 AM
NYCLuver's Avatar
NYCLuver NYCLuver is offline
Astorian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 740
1,050 would still have a huge impact on the skyline in the area, but I am disappointed that they want to take off 200 feet for the most ignorant of reasons.
__________________
New York City = My Home! :)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #943  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 1:01 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Is this a denial, or a conditional approval?
It won't be official until they do the actual vote today, but it reads like conditional approval. Hines would get the permits it wants to build the tower in the form it wants - but here's the catch - they would have to drop 200 ft. I would prefer they just go ahead with the 1,089 ft as-of-right version than see a watered down version of the Tower Verre.



Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/ar...gn/15arch.html

Next to MoMA, a Tower Will Reach for the Stars

November 15, 2007

Hines asked Mr. Nouvel to come up with two possible designs for the site. A decade ago anyone who was about to invest hundreds of millions on a building would inevitably have chosen the more conservative of the two. But times have changed. Architecture is a form of marketing now, and Hines made the bolder choice.
Only to be shot down with some half-a$$ed excuse about mechanical space and the Empire State spire. Meanwhile, if not for the bad economy, bulky, boxy towers that would do far more "harm" to the Empire State's spire would be rising already...


__
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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
     
     
  #944  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 1:40 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,839
Quote:
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...99s-moma-tower

However the commission believes that the applicant has not made a convincing argument that the design of the tower’s top, with the uppermost 200 feet of the building, merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s iconic spire, making the building the second tallest building in New York City.

I know the massing would be different, but a 1,050 ft TV and a 1,250 ft TV with the ESB.....(ESB drawing from http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/...36594026eJwEDi)




__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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
     
     
  #945  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 4:32 PM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,099
That plus the Empire State is too far away for this tower to have any influence on it.

Amanda Burden and her commissioners are stupid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #946  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 4:48 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
That plus the Empire State is too far away for this tower to have any influence on it.

Amanda Burden and her commissioners are stupid.
The stupidity of it is mind boggling.


http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-next-to-moma/

Planning Commission Votes for a Shorter Skyscraper Next to MoMA

By The New York Times
September 9 2009

The New York City Planning Commission voted Wednesday morning to cut 200 feet off a proposed Jean Nouvel tower that was to have rivaled the Empire State Building in height. The tower, being built by the international real estate developer Hines, is planned for a site next to the Museum of Modern Art.

In comments made in advance of the vote and reported yesterday on the Web site of The New York Observer, Edith Hsu-Chen, the director of the Manhattan office of the Department of City Planning said that although the overall design of the building is “exemplary,” the commission is concerned about its effect on the skyline, and does not feel that the top of the tower—originally slated to reach 1,250 feet, about the same height as the city’s tallest building minus its antenna — “merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s iconic spire.”

________________________________________

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...200-foot-chomp

Quote:
Amanda Burden apparently doesn’t want to get Ratnered by MoMA.

Burned by a post-approval architect swap at Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project—the Brooklyn developer dropped Frank Gehry and his iconic basketball arena earlier this year—the chairwoman of the City Planning Commission is going to new lengths to see that she’s not the victim of a future bait-and-switch.

The first to experience this new approach are MoMA and Texas developer Hines Interests, which are planning a slender, pointy, 1,250-foot skyscraper adjacent to the West 53rd Street museum.

Ms. Burden and her colleagues are expected to take a gigantic 200-foot bite off the height of Mr. Nouvel’s baby, and, according to an executive involved with discussions, layer on a set of regulations aimed at handcuffing the developer to its current design.
So they want to keep the developer from doing a bait and switch, by doing a bait and switch. The 1,250 ft version of the tower is the one that has gone through this lengthy two year process. Yet, now at the final moment, it's the Planning Commission that does the switch here.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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; Sep 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #947  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 5:08 PM
Antares41's Avatar
Antares41 Antares41 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bflo/Pgh/Msn/NYC
Posts: 1,975
If the top 200 ft offend thee cut it off!!!

Seems a bit drastic to me. Would it be simplier just to re-design the top to give it a more iconic look (whatever that means!). I am no fan of unsightly mechanical housings and water tanks, so from that respect I understand the approval commission position, although I do not agree with their decision.

Within the context of the past discussion on this bldg it seems like a "veiled opposition" which is really meant to somewhat placate the NIMBYs. In the end nobody walks away completely happy.

Last edited by Antares41; Sep 9, 2009 at 5:10 PM. Reason: Add a word
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #948  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 5:13 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares41 View Post
I am no fan of unsightly mechanical housings and water tanks, so from that respect I understand the approval commission position.
Can someone please explain what's so unsightly about the top of this tower? I love the Empire State Building probably more than any other tower on the planet, but it's not the greatest spire in town, and if we were using prior spires as a benchmark, then the ESB spire should never have been allowed to eclipse the Chrysler.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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
     
     
  #949  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 5:21 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
'Ms. Burden and her colleagues are expected to take a gigantic 200-foot bite off the height of Mr. Nouvel’s baby, and, according to an executive involved with discussions, layer on a set of regulations aimed at handcuffing the developer to its current design.'

Oh yeah, that makes sense, 'you have to build it exactly the way it is except not at all.'
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #950  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 5:45 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,839
Here's something that will shock NO ONE...the whining continues...

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/

September 9, 2009

MoMA Monster Update: City Planning Downsizes Nouvel’s Tower (but it’s still too tall)



What was expected to happen has, in fact, now happened: The NY City Planning Commission this morning voted in favor of the MoMA/Hines tower designed by Jean Nouvel, with one major modification: Designs must be resubmitted to comply with the commission's stipulation that the height of the tower be reduced by 200 feet, to 1,050 feet.

That would still make the MoMA Monster more than twice the height of the tallest building now on its E. 54th St. block---Emery Roth & Sons' Financial Times building, a mere 496 feet high (41 stories), compared to the 1,250 feet and 85 stories in the plan submitted by MoMA/Hines, now subject to modification. The FT building, on the corner, fronts on Avenue of the Americas, where highrise office towers are commonplace. The MoMA/Hines building would be a very tall mid-block stalagmite on E. 54th St.---a block that had been low-rise in character until a MoMA-related luxury apartment project, Museum Tower, was erected to help provide funds for the museum's 1984 Cesar Pelli expansion.

The proposed tower's postage-stamp lot (which extends from E. 53rd to E. 54th St.) is difficult to photograph, because it's now shielded by black-covered fencing. I stuck my camera through a gap in the fence on 54th St., and got this:



And here's the view from across the street on 54th:



The black building building adjacent to MoMA, to the left rear of the empty lot, is the American Folk Art Museum, which agreed to sell air rights to help enable the MoMA/Hines tower to soar to excess heights. Also agreeing to sell air rights for the project were two nearby landmarks---the University Club and St. Thomas Church. It now appears that at least some of those air rights won't be needed after all.

And this just in---MoMA has now released the following statement, suggesting that the developers and architect will go ahead with the project, as modified:

The Museum of Modern Art appreciates the City Planning Commission's diligent review of the 53 West 53rd Street proposal and is pleased that the public review process is moving forward. While we had hoped that the Commission would approve the Jean Nouvel design as originally proposed, we are confident that the process will yield a project that contributes greatly to the architectural heritage and economy of the city.

The project next goes to the City Council for consideration, with a vote expected next month.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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
     
     
  #951  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:32 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
just came back ... what the hell is going on here?
Quote:
The New York City Planning Commission voted Wednesday morning to cut 200 feet off a proposed Jean Nouvel tower that was to have rivaled the Empire State Building in height.
is this a joke or what? so the ESB is going to be the tallest tower in the nearby area for another 100 years!?

all i can say is: imprison all the wimps for this mess!

Last edited by NYguy; Sep 10, 2009 at 12:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #952  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:32 PM
Antares41's Avatar
Antares41 Antares41 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bflo/Pgh/Msn/NYC
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Can someone please explain what's so unsightly about the top of this tower?
I doubt anyone honestly can answer that question? But, then again I don't believe it was ever about the aesthetics of the top 200ft. It was about finding the political middle ground between Nouvel/MoMA/Hines and the NIMBYs.

Build and iconic futuristic tower yet throw a bone to the NIMBYs to let them know the city is listening to it citizens(well at least a few vocal citizens). An its been my experience that political decisions are rarely if ever truly reasonable nor do opposing sides walk away totally pleased.

There certainly are bldgs. that have worst crowns. But, somehow this commission latched on to the partially exposed mechanicals and made it a point of contention in their drive to reduce the bldg's height. Perhaps the continued reference to the ESB prove to be a detriment to the Tower Verre. Which is a shame because other than height they are two different bldgs with different missions. I don't understand elevating the ESB to a standard that other future bldgs will have to meet, why set the precedent? Its bound to be subjective and thus appear inconsistently applied.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #953  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:44 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares41 View Post
I don't understand elevating the ESB to a standard that other future bldgs will have to meet, why set the precedent?
well, you are not the only one asking that question...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #954  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 8:07 PM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,401
NYC has to expand and grow. We could wait 10 years for this building to get built but it has to get built to a height of 1,250 ft. Just like downtown had to grow and we got rid of radio row, and the romantic downtown skyline was gone. Midtown has to grow with buildings taller than the ESB.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #955  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 8:15 PM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,401
Everybody is bringing the ESB in this situation for no reason. They are just worried about putting a 1,250 ft building in an area with 700 ft tall buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #956  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 8:53 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,436
Well I could have told you this would happen 6 months ago. Why is everyone so shocked?

It's not even going to be 1050 feet either, it needs to be shorter than that now, 1050 is "still too tall"

I don't know what's wrong with NYC, it used to be one of the greatest skyscraper cities on the planet, the capital even, and now development is slowing down, great projects are being cancelled and shortened, this is all too sad, I really used to like this city but it seems like it's all going down hill from here.

Shame on the city commision and Amanda Burden

Last edited by NYguy; Sep 10, 2009 at 12:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #957  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 9:47 PM
AlexYVR's Avatar
AlexYVR AlexYVR is offline
In Love With YVRthing
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago:Vancouver
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Well I could have told you this would happen 6 months ago. Why is everyone so shocked?

For all of you who say I'm being too negative, I was just trying to be realistic, look at what city we're dealing with, a city that struggles to build a 900 foot building. NY is pathetic when it comes to skyscrapers.
I love visiting the NY forums and I appreciate your opinions but maybe because this board is called 'Skyscraper Page Forum' and not 'Prognosticate the death of the subject (which all forumers love) Forum', people get the sads when you're right. I know I did/do/am.
__________________
WWJJD?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #958  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 10:55 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Disappointing yes, but I cannot honestly say that I was confident that this tower would make it through the approval process untouched. With that I always embraced the reality of a smaller tower, but in all honestly I think we can all be happy with what we should be getting from this point on. 1050’ for that area will make a significant and noticeable impact.

With Beekman going up Downtown really balances out my overall disappointment with this (in other words we’ll still have a new architectural gem). But who knows, this might be just as nice and appearance wise I’m sure we’ll go without disappointment.

Think positive guys.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #959  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 11:04 PM
YSL YSL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 320
BOOOOOOOOOO TOO SHORT.

200 FT is a very signifcant change and it won't have nearly as much of an impact on the skyline. I am so sick of the Empire State Building solely dominating the skyline and being used as a measuring stick for all future developments in this city. Why is it so difficult for NYC to catapult itself into the 21st Century? The Empire State Building is beautiful but it's time to move on and erect other iconic and yes, TALL buildings. NYC desperately needs something 1,200FT +. Fuck The Planning Commission, Amanda Burden and the rest of the foggy geratiric NIMBYs wet their their diapers at the thought of another one of those tall scary towers in Midtown Manhattan.

Now when (if) it's built, I will always think of what could have been when viewing it. It's a beautiful design but I will never be satisfied with it.

NEXT.

Last edited by YSL; Sep 9, 2009 at 11:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #960  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2009, 12:51 AM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac150 View Post
Disappointing yes, but I cannot honestly say that I was confident that this tower would make it through the approval process untouched. With that I always embraced the reality of a smaller tower, but in all honestly I think we can all be happy with what we should be getting from this point on. 1050’ for that area will make a significant and noticeable impact.

With Beekman going up Downtown really balances out my overall disappointment with this (in other words we’ll still have a new architectural gem). But who knows, this might be just as nice and appearance wise I’m sure we’ll go without disappointment.

Think positive guys.
Architecturally, Beekman is just a normal skyscraper with a fancy skin. Tower Verre is the real deal, however. A skyscraper that pushes the limits on contemporary assumptions about tall buildings...that Beekman ain't.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:50 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.