HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    53W53 in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1041  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 10:29 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
So basically you're saying that there is an unspoken 1000 foot height limit for those sights, and really for all of midtown manhattan.
There are no heigh limits. Buildings are effectively limited by size. This tower was planned with only .6 msf of space, yet came in 1,250 ft. Meanwhile, a new tower like the Goldman Sachs comes in with 2.2 msf and a height of 740 ft. The difference is in how the floor area is distributed, and office buildings obviously need the larger floorplates.
__________________
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.
     
     
  #1042  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 10:35 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
But if the height isn't limited why did those tower on the westside get shortened? They were planned for a huge amount of space.

Anyway this is a problem that New York certainly needs to face. This vicious anti-development attitude is the exact opposite of what the city needs, in fact it's going to hurt it greatly in the future. Why does is seem there is NO ONE that seems to realize that? It's really mind boggling that idiots get listened to and people's whose opinions are worth hearing don't.
     
     
  #1043  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 10:40 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
But if the height isn't limited why did those tower on the westside get shortened? They were planned for a huge amount of space.
What are you talking about? The developers can put 50-story buildings there if they wanted to. They could also put 2,000 ft towers there. But it has to make economic sense. People don't just build as tall as they can because they can. Surely you know this.
__________________
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.
     
     
  #1044  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 3:10 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Of course I know that, I'm stating the fact that many supertalls, even a couple of 1,200 foot buildings are "planned" to be built there and were apparently shortened, and if not will be.

Sorry to get off topic but how on earth would we see towers more than 1000 feet there if this is New York's attitude.
     
     
  #1045  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 5:08 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Of course I know that, I'm stating the fact that many supertalls, even a couple of 1,200 foot buildings are "planned" to be built there and were apparently shortened, and if not will be.

Sorry to get off topic but how on earth would we see towers more than 1000 feet there if this is New York's attitude.
Well, I've tried to explain it to you, and you fail to grasp the concept. The bottom line is there are no height limits on any of those towers, the Tower Verre was restricted in height because the Planning Commision decided to drop the height in return for granting special permits Hines needs to build that specific tower on that specific lot. Just leave it at 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.
     
     
  #1046  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 5:36 AM
Antares41's Avatar
Antares41 Antares41 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bflo/Pgh/Msn/NYC
Posts: 2,145
In other words had Tower Verre been schedule to be built as part of the Hudson Yard Development ,assuming a proper lot size was obtained, it would be able to be constructed to 1,250 ft without any interference from the CPC. The lot where it is currently located in midtown, and, it is relatively small, was the limiting factor. The current lot only accomodated the 1,050ft proposal anything above that need CPC approval.
     
     
  #1047  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 6:00 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Well, I've tried to explain it to you, and you fail to grasp the concept. The bottom line is there are no height limits on any of those towers, the Tower Verre was restricted in height because the Planning Commision decided to drop the height in return for granting special permits Hines needs to build that specific tower on that specific lot. Just leave it at that.
Maybe I had trouble "grasping the concept" because you just contradicted yourself, read the above post and the below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Well, they made sure to put caps on some of those Hudson Yards sites that didn't have caps, meaning those towers could have been as large and as tall as the developers wanted. When the City Council makes changes, it goes back to the CPC. That was the case with the Hudson Yards zoning and the so called "four points" towers. Two of those towers we now know as the Girasole and the World Product Center.
     
     
  #1048  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 6:07 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares41 View Post
In other words had Tower Verre been schedule to be built as part of the Hudson Yard Development ,assuming a proper lot size was obtained, it would be able to be constructed to 1,250 ft without any interference from the CPC. The lot where it is currently located in midtown, and, it is relatively small, was the limiting factor. The current lot only accomodated the 1,050ft proposal anything above that need CPC approval.
Close, but not quite. Hines can build to 1,089 ft now, without any further approvals. But they need those special permits in order to distribute all of the air rights they are buying from the landmarks to the site. The footprint also sits in two different zoning sets. Let's say you have two bowls. You are only allowed to put 10 apples in one bowl, and 5 apples in the other. But you want to put 12 apples in one and 3 in the other. You get permission to do so, but only if the apples are green. That's how arbitrary the decision to cut 200 ft off the top was. It was only done because the CPC didn't like the top of the building, and didn't want it to interfere with the Empire State's spire, which begins to form at that height (1,050 ft).
__________________
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.
     
     
  #1049  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 6:09 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Maybe I had trouble "grasping the concept" because you just contradicted yourself, read the above post and the below...
Caps in size and caps in height are two different things. If you don't get that, then I can't help you.
__________________
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.
     
     
  #1050  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 7:01 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
There's a difference of 161 ft between what Hines can build as-of-right and the proposed tower. But Hines would lose 278,549 sf from the project - about 1/3 of the total size, to do so. It's clear why they would likely proceed with the shorter, 1050 ft version. They would lose nowhere near as much space.








Striking difference in form also...






And less bulk at the lower levels...

__________________
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.
     
     
  #1051  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 5:28 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
So if they where to build the full amount of square feet, the Commission really couldn't give them that extra 39 feet? That's ridiculous. There is no reason in this city.
     
     
  #1052  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 5:44 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
So if they where to build the full amount of square feet, the Commission really couldn't give them that extra 39 feet? That's ridiculous. There is no reason in this city.
Well, they're in charge. It's not that they don't like large buildings. Amanda Burden was at the CPC when the Hudson Yards zoning passed, and at that time it was the City Council that wanted the power to regulate the size of what got built there...here's a flashback for those that don't remember:

Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

BLOCKS; The Sky Is No Longer the Limit on Far West Side Buildings

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
January 13, 2005


''No limit.''

These were perhaps the most striking words in the rezoning plan for the Far West Side of Manhattan, also known as Hudson Yards. They referred to the density limit that the City Planning Commission, until this week, intended to place on the commercial development of two blocks at the heart of Hudson Yards. None.

Developers would have been free to build towers on these blocks as large as they could. There would have been no specified maximum under the density control called the floor-area ratio, or F.A.R., which has regulated building sizes throughout the city since 1961. (In zoning districts with a ratio of 18, for instance, the owner of a 10,000-square-foot lot may build a structure with 18 times the floor area, or 180,000 square feet.)

Visions of office towers soaring 80 stories and higher were conjured by Community Board 4 last year in its critique of the plan, which described the overall density as ''unprecedented, undesirable and ultimately unnecessary for the city's future.''

When Melinda Katz, the chairwoman of the City Council's Land Use Committee, learned of the no-limit provision at a hearing last month, she told planning officials, ''I'm sure we'll be getting back to you on that.''

In a telephone interview yesterday, Ms. Katz, a Queens Democrat, explained: ''No. 1, I was concerned with precedent. No. 2, we were uncomfortable as a council with passing something that basically took the authority for creating a limit away from us.''


To the administration's credit, she said, a floor-area ratio of 33 was quickly imposed on the two blocks after objections to the no-limit proposal were raised. That was one of several compromises made in the Hudson Yards plan before the committee approved it on Monday, 15 to 0, with 1 abstention. It goes to the full Council for a vote next Wednesday.

The blocks in question are bounded by 10th and 11th Avenues and 33rd and 35th Streets. They are known as the Four Corners because they would be bisected by a new north-south midblock boulevard, which would effectively create four large building sites. The southwest site would be directly over the new terminus of a planned extension of the No. 7 subway line.

''You have to have density to get vibrancy,'' said Amanda M. Burden, chairwoman of the Planning Commission and director of the City Planning Department. ''We believe that deeply, deeply, deeply.'' At the same time, she said, planners do not expect construction of the office buildings to start until the expected completion of the No. 7 line in 2010.

The basic floor-area ratio on the Four Corners would be 10, but a developer could add 8 by making payments into a district improvement fund to help finance the boulevard, parkland and subway extension. The developer could add 15 more by purchasing development rights from the rail yard to the south. Because of a limit on the amount of transferable development rights from the rail yard, however, not all Four Corners sites could reach the maximum floor-area ratio, 33.

While that ratio far exceeds the current limit of 21.6 in the zoning rules, city planners note that other skyscrapers have been constructed at roughly that density or greater.

''It is not much different than the buildings that went up along Times Square,'' said Sandy Hornick, director of strategic planning at the planning department. Cautioning that density can be calculated in a variety of ways, Mr. Hornick put the floor-area ratio of 7 Times Square (Times Square Tower) at 42; 5 Times Square (Ernst & Young), 36; 4 Times Square (Condé Nast), 31; and 3 Times Square (Reuters), 25.

The point of removing density limits at the Four Corners, he said, was to allow developers flexibility in transferring development rights from the rail yard. ''We didn't really think that people would build infinitely tall buildings,'' he said.

There are practical limits, as Carol Willis, the founding director of the Skyscraper Museum, noted in ''Form Follows Finance'' (Princeton Architectural Press). ''At some point in the construction of every skyscraper,'' she wrote in 1995, ''the law of diminishing returns sets in, and rents for the additional stories do not cover costs'' -- including extra foundations, equipment and space for elevator shafts. These days, there is another inhibition: tenants might feel like targets on very high floors.
__________________
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.
     
     
  #1053  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 6:02 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,071
To Zapatan: Learn the concept of "Floor Area Ratio" or "FAR" before wasting anymore space on this thread... this is the concept that drives the size / height of buildings in NYC (unless you need special permits from City Planning, as the case here). Your endless negative comments about development in NYC are both poorly informed and exasperating. Thank you.

Let's get back to Tower Verre...
     
     
  #1054  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 7:12 PM
Antares41's Avatar
Antares41 Antares41 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bflo/Pgh/Msn/NYC
Posts: 2,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Close, but not quite. Hines can build to 1,089 ft now, without any further approvals. But they need those special permits in order to distribute all of the air rights they are buying from the landmarks to the site. The footprint also sits in two different zoning sets. Let's say you have two bowls. You are only allowed to put 10 apples in one bowl, and 5 apples in the other. But you want to put 12 apples in one and 3 in the other. You get permission to do so, but only if the apples are green. That's how arbitrary the decision to cut 200 ft off the top was. It was only done because the CPC didn't like the top of the building, and didn't want it to interfere with the Empire State's spire, which begins to form at that height (1,050 ft).
Appreciate that explanation, Thanks!
     
     
  #1055  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2009, 8:53 PM
TwinTowersForever's Avatar
TwinTowersForever TwinTowersForever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 156
I saw an article in the NY Times about cutting the height. I think that's ridiculous. I like the tower and cant wait to see it start to rise.
__________________
NYC Rulez
     
     
  #1056  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2009, 12:43 AM
Wheelingman04's Avatar
Wheelingman04 Wheelingman04 is offline
Pittsburgh rocks!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salem, OH (near Youngstown)
Posts: 8,800
At least it is over 1,000ft and still taller than LA and Houston's tallest. I have seen those two in person and they are beasts. This will be even a little taller. Why complain?
__________________
1 hour from Pittsburgh and 1 hour from Cleveland
Go Ohio State!!
Ohio Proud!
     
     
  #1057  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2009, 12:57 AM
NYC4Life's Avatar
NYC4Life NYC4Life is offline
The Time To Build Is Now
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bronx, NYC
Posts: 3,004
^^^ This is NYC, we deserve taller towers, not the amount of NIMBYISM that are destorying the future of this city.
__________________
"I want to wake up in the city that never sleeps"
     
     
  #1058  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2009, 1:04 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC4Life View Post
^^^ This is NYC, we deserve taller towers, not the amount of NIMBYISM that are destorying the future of this city.
Not just that, but people are upset behind the reasoning for the height cut, something totally arbitrary and unecessary.


Sorry about the large pic, but worthy of taking it all in...

Rand Lee

__________________
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.
     
     
  #1059  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2009, 1:55 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
what? they made this building shorter now?

WHAT THE HELL!
     
     
  #1060  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2009, 3:19 AM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is online now
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 7,221
The feet in the thread title have been changed, but the metres were not?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.