HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

    

30 Hudson Yards 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
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2011, 5:38 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,394
It really is a pity that we'll end up with another plateau effect around here. Most of those talls are around the 1000-1200 range. IMO, they should have allowed just 1 site be capable of hosting a 1500-1600ft tower as a focal point for the west side. I really don't consider a thin spire as a good plateau-breaker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2011, 7:00 PM
brian.odonnell20 brian.odonnell20 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 390
Wait, did I read you right? You think it would be a pity to have a 1000-1200 ft plateau in Manhattan?
__________________
"Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings."
-Salvador Dali
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2011, 7:15 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,394
Just my opinion.

I do not like plateau effects, sorry. I find they destroy skylines no matter the height. They just look blah and the lack of variation lacks drama.

That is why I lamented the fact that the heights will all be so similar with no tower capable of standing out as a 'centerpiece' tower that could create a peak in the new skyline. For appearance sake, they could have allowed one of the sites have some kind of no-max FAR to encourage a true standout tower among the others. Unfortunately, NY is not a master planned community and there are NIMBY concerns. I still can't understand that since the residents are no where near this site. 4 towers around 1000-1200 with a single 1400+ tower would create a more balanced and beautiful skyline for the west side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2011, 7:43 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,397
It's not about what would create a more "balanced and beautiful skyline" it's what is a good fiscal investment for Related. If they felt that a 1,600 ft tower would have offered them the greatest return on their investment, I'm sure Related would have planned on building one. The larger of the two looks like 1200 or 1300 ft, couple that with 15 Penn and MW both at about 1200 ft, this area will have a 1200 foot plateau surrounded by 700-1000 footers like the Girasole, smaller MW tower, and the other tower for this project, which is fine by me.

Since my question got bumped back to the last page, is the Javits Hotel still planned or is that dead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2011, 7:56 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,394
I know it's about financial viability. The point I was trying to make was that even if someone wanted to build a taller tower I don't think the FAR is available to do that without creating a very skinny/unprofitable tower that would be unrealistic to build somewhere like NYC. They changed the status from no-max when nimbies complained. I also would like to see no limits on the west side given its the last major development area in NYC. Residents are far away, this is a wasteland and I'm not happy with the decision to reduce FAR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2011, 8:42 PM
Rey88 Rey88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Smile

Well, I think that the Javits Hotel plan is dead. But the site (with 1,248,138 square foot) is a good place for a tower (hotel and residential) like the original Chicago Fordham Tower (2000 ft tall with spire and 115 stories) with 920,000 square foot (a five-star hotel and 250 luxury condos).
Do you like the idea of more 1000-1200' towers with a single 2000 ft tower? About Hudson Railyard, I think that the Related's project is good for this site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 12:48 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,394
Would such a tower fit the FAR on that site?

I'm not sure a developer in NYC would build a skinny tall tower just for prestige anymore, but I remain hopeful. I would expect a bulky fat shorter tower. However if the economy were booming and demand for luxury apartments was going through the roof, perhaps such a building could occur.

It wouldn't be any ordinary developer who would do this, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 2:21 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is online now
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,055
No one ever said there would be no 1400 footers yet, theres more than 40m sf involved here, there will be more projects in the future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 3:41 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 34,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Hope this doesn't take this thread too far off topic, but is the Javits Hotel still planned or is it dead?
The plans for that convention center hotel were scrapped after the convention center expasion was basically canceled (a much smaller version of the expansion has been underway). However, one of the towers planned for the eastern half of the yards, directly accross the "maze" from the office towes is a hotel/residential tower.

https://content.related.com/Lists/In...002.9.2011.pdf

Quote:
In all, the project will encompass more than 12 million sq. ft., with approximately 5,000 apartments, 6 million sq. ft. of office space, at least one hotel, a public school, and a cultural building. The master plan also calls for 750,000 sq. ft. of retail space. The retail will take the form of a podium of four floors or higher, surrounded by three office towers.

The developers have considered both brand and boutique hotels for the site, which could accommodate up to three hotels. “We’ve considered a five- star hotel, which would be 250 to 350 rooms. We’ve also considered a convention hotel, 1,000 rooms,” says Cross. Discussions have been held with potential operators.

Here's that generic rendering of a hotel...

__________________
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
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 3:52 PM
Mike K.'s Avatar
Mike K. Mike K. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,228
I've been wondering about that hotel myself. Thanks, NYguy.
__________________
>>>VibrantVictoria.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 3:52 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 34,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
I know it's about financial viability. The point I was trying to make was that even if someone wanted to build a taller tower I don't think the FAR is available to do that without creating a very skinny/unprofitable tower that would be unrealistic to build somewhere like NYC. They changed the status from no-max when nimbies complained.
Nimbies didn't have anything to do with that.


Quote:
I also would like to see no limits on the west side given its the last major development area in NYC. Residents are far away, this is a wasteland and I'm not happy with the decision to reduce FAR.
Even if there are no limits, the fact is no office tower is going to reach 2,000 ft. Towers of 1,500 ft are also costly to build. Other than the WTC, which is only partially being built to restore the skyline, towers aren't built in New York for the sake of building high. These towers serve a purpose, without them the city could not grow or continue as a home for the companies that would seek space elsewhere. Imagine lower Manhattan before the WTC was built, with virtually no new, modern office space. That's what Midtown would eventually become if these new office towers that are planned don't get built. The fact that these towers are as tall as they are says a lot about what's going on, because look around. There aren't that many supertall office proposals in the US. Outside of New York, three come to mind. We will have that many going up at the WTC alone. So all of this bitching about height really makes no sense.
__________________
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
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 4:48 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,394
I'm not bitching, i'm expressing my opinion. You're the one with all the hostility. From your responses you seem to be getting a false sense of my posts. The internet is not a good communication medium for emotions.

I am calmly expressing my opinions on an opinion forum and you are engaging in hostile, almost arrogant language.


If the nimbies didn't help reduce the FAR, what did?

The fact that you say that without FAR restrictions that it is a "fact" that no tower would ever reach 2000ft is hilarious. Are you a seer now? Do you know the future state of the NYC economy and the perceptions 20 years from now? Oh, and i never said it would have to be an office only tower.

Anyway, there is every possibility that a tower of that height, probably mixed-use, could be viable in a booming economy in NYC. I have no doubt. It may not be soon, but as land dries up, some developer will come along with another fantastic idea.

Last edited by aquablue; Mar 14, 2011 at 5:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 5:39 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,397
Thanks for the replies on the Hotel NYGuy and Rey.

At the end of the day, we're complaining about a $15 billion megadevelopment getting underway in a less than ideal economy, and if you include surrounding towers, 3 1200 foot towers being constructed, along with a handful of other 500-1000 foot buildings. In my opinion 3 buildings does not create a plateau effect, and even if it did, a 1200 foot plateau on what will be only a small part of NYs skyline is fine by me.

This sums it up for me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20 View Post
Wait, did I read you right? You think it would be a pity to have a 1000-1200 ft plateau in Manhattan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 8:54 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,040
as long as the developers don't pull shenanigans with the northernmost stretch of the highline, the ideas i am seeing around the railyard look alright by me. all are a bit bland perhaps, but hard to tell from the renders so everyone should keep an open mind at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 9:16 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,103
I don't think NYC is going to get any 2,000 foot building unless if there is a demand. NYC build buildings so people can occupy them. Which is unlike Dubai where the Burj Dubai is 60-70% empty. What do you think Dubai builds these buildings for. They only build them for show. Those people have small things under their pants so they build them to show off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 9:32 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
I don't think NYC is going to get any 2,000 foot building unless if there is a demand. NYC build buildings so people can occupy them. Which is unlike Dubai where the Burj Dubai is 60-70% empty. What do you think Dubai builds these buildings for. They only build them for show. Those people have small things under their pants so they build them to show off.
actually a place like dubai is what nyc used to be. don't forget the esb was built for show too. but i do agree we're not going to see 2k ft for awhile. and like most i really don't care, i'm more interested in quality and variety.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 9:38 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,103
You forgot to count the fact that the original WTC destroyed on 9/11 wasn't built for show. It was built, because the Port Authority of NY, and NJ needed office space, and they needed to develop Lower Manhattan which wasn't developed, and had been left out of most development. Once they came around Lower Manhattan became one of the world centers of economics, and would be once One World Trade Center is done along with everything else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 10:25 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,394
1600ft-2000ft is not an absurd vision for NYC in the next 20 years and if proposed there would a real reason for it. After all, NYC is incredibly dense and is fast running out of land for development. Most tall buildings are in manhattan and I can't see supertalls elsewhere. Sooner or later, unless NY enters decline, land is going have to be up zoned in commercial districts and you may see proposals for taller towers. The area of land to build on gets smaller every year with all the historical districts, height limits that are created and more and more wealthy nimbies. Don't forget more and more sites are being developed. Of course, it would take an economic climate of great prosperity. I predict any 2000 foot tower proposed in the future would be mixed-use. It would probably be some combination of hotel, office, and condo. Also there is the prestige factor of unobstructed views and 'having the tallest condos' in the city that can be a fantastic marketing hook and some developers have very big egos, llarge enough to attempt something crazy like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 11:19 PM
brian.odonnell20 brian.odonnell20 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 390
i think there should be a 2000 ft nyc tower thread for speculation and further discussion
__________________
"Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings."
-Salvador Dali
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2011, 11:25 PM
UrbanImpact's Avatar
UrbanImpact UrbanImpact is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 639
I'm still hoping that these renderings are generic. As far as building a "megatall"........I think it plausible if it were to be mixed use like the John Hancock in Chicago.
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 10:31 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.