NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS

[Big Towers]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I was in my teen years when the Original WTC Towers were built. I was living near Chicago at the time, which was also building its own behemoth: The Sears Tower. (Currently known as the Willis Tower). I was well aware of the WTC being built, but I focused more attention on the Sears Tower's construction, because it was closer to home.

Coincidently, both the Sears Tower and the World Trade Center were completed in the same year, which I found fascinating.

Lucky, I wasn't even born yet at that time.

[NYguy]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/110419918

Top floors, addresses pace office rally
Overall availability rates in Manhattan notch down again in March and average rents continue to climb;
need seen for all that new construction downtown, according to CB Richard Ellis Inc.



By Marine Cole
April 14, 2011

The Manhattan office market is strengthening but not uniformly. Gains logged by top floors at the most desirable buildings are running well ahead of others, as are large blocks of space in well-situated towers and—oddly enough—smaller spaces in Class B buildings, according to CB Richard Ellis Inc.'s first-quarter report released Thursday.

“We're very positive,” said John Maher, a CBRE executive vice president. “That being said, the market is highly segmented.”

The overall availability rate in Manhattan office properties stood at 12.4% in March, mostly unchanged from 12.5% the previous month. But Mr. Maher noted that the availability rate for high floors in midtown buildings is 2.7% and falls to less than 1% if tenants focus on the Top 25 buildings in midtown. On the other hand, the market for offices of 20,000 to 50,000 square feet is much softer as a significant volume of space remains available.

Deals worth more than $100 a square foot are also coming back. There were 13 leases with rents over $100 a square foot signed in the first quarter of 2011, for an average of 26,407 square feet. That is up dramatically from 2010, when the whole year generated just 19 deals above that bar, with an average of 9,207 square feet. On the other hand, at the peak of the market in 2008, there were 105 deals with rents over $100 a square foot, for an average of 23,535 square feet.

“As a tenant, you have to understand what segment you fit in to understand what leverage you have,” Mr. Maher said, noting that quality buildings are separating themselves from the pack and that the trend is becoming more pronounced over time.

The average asking rent in the Manhattan office market rose to $49.93 per square foot, up from $49.61 a foot the previous month. In midtown, it increased to $58.14 per square foot in March from $57.97 a foot the previous month. In midtown south, it rose 15 cents a foot in March. Downtown, the average asking rent leaped $1.32 to $39.33 per square foot, due to more expensive space hitting the market and Citibank taking a block of cheaper Wall Street space off the market.

Considering the relatively small number of large blocks of space on the market and rising rents, CBRE believes there's a need for new construction, such as the towers now rising at the World Trade Center site.

“We're favorably disposed to the new construction downtown,” Mr. Maher said. “We believe it won't be an oversupply by any stretch.”

[Don098]

Then let's get some tenants!!!! I'm dying here...but probably not as much as Silverstein, that's for sure.

(P.S. That's one old picture!!!!)

[NYguy]

Cortlandt Way, the thruway between towers 3 and 4...

[The Grand Architect]

You know, I was just thinking- Why don't Towers 3 and 4 have a "indoor bridge" connecting both towers, just like the World Financial Center?

I mean, they are very close to each other, and a glass indoor bridge about 25 feet above the Cortlandt Way will enhance a view, and gives visitors and workers access to the other tower. The bridge should connect the retail section of the 4 WTC and 3 WTC. If built, it should give people a spectacular view of the 9/11 Memorial and the other buildings behind it.

I don't see any drawbacks/disadvantages of this concept. Sure, a few thousand dollars have to be spent, but hey, a few thousand compared to a few hundred million to build the WTC is only a small amount.

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

You know, I was just thinking- Why don't Towers 3 and 4 have a "indoor bridge" connecting both towers, just like the World Financial Center?

I mean, they are very close to each other, and a glass indoor bridge about 25 feet above the Cortlandt Way will enhance a view, and gives visitors and workers access to the other tower. The bridge should connect the retail section of the 4 WTC and 3 WTC. If built, it should give people a spectacular view of the 9/11 Memorial and the other buildings behind it.

I don't see any drawbacks/disadvantages of this concept. Sure, a few thousand dollars have to be spent, but hey, a few thousand compared to a few hundred million to build the WTC is only a small amount.

That would make a lot of sense for people who only want to pass back and forth from the towers without losing time in the maze of pedestrian traffic on the street.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

You know, I was just thinking- Why don't Towers 3 and 4 have a "indoor bridge" connecting both towers, just like the World Financial Center?

I mean, they are very close to each other, and a glass indoor bridge about 25 feet above the Cortlandt Way will enhance a view, and gives visitors and workers access to the other tower. The bridge should connect the retail section of the 4 WTC and 3 WTC. If built, it should give people a spectacular view of the 9/11 Memorial and the other buildings behind it.

I don't see any drawbacks/disadvantages of this concept. Sure, a few thousand dollars have to be spent, but hey, a few thousand compared to a few hundred million to build the WTC is only a small amount.

No offense, but I don't like your idea one bit. As much as I love the WFC pavillion, it is a huge impediment to free-flowing pedestrian movement. It functions so well because, as a barrier, it makes the Battery Park waterfront more peaceful. It also works because it is architecturally cohesive.

By slapping some clumsy atrium between two individual and distinct skyscrapers, you are disrespecting the thing that makes New York City possible--movement. This is one of the greatest strengths of the new WTC design, it respects the layout of the city.

[Traynor]

^He said "bridge" that is: A passageway ABOVE the street below. He even suggested 25 feet above. That would not stop the street-level pedestrian flow between the buildings below.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Traynor

^He said "bridge" that is: A passageway ABOVE the street below. He even suggested 25 feet above. That would not stop the street-level pedestrian flow between the buildings below.

Woops, sorry. I think I read the first sentence and perseverated on his comparison to wfc.

Still don't like the idea. Skybridges are ugly. Let them connect underground

[STR]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

You know, I was just thinking- Why don't Towers 3 and 4 have a "indoor bridge" connecting both towers, just like the World Financial Center?

Because they're already connected via the concourse. You take an escalator down, hang a left, go 90 feet and take a right to go up another escalator that empties into the other tower's lobby.

[djlx2]

The view from overhead certainly looks better, but then again, an underground passage adds a certain level of complexity and makes it more interesting, not to mention more personal

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by pico44

Woops, sorry. I think I read the first sentence and perseverated on his comparison to wfc.

Still don't like the idea. Skybridges are ugly. Let them connect underground

This isn't a skybridge, pico44. This is simply a 25-feet-above-ground glass covered bridge that connects the 3 and 4 WTC. We're not talking about the Petronas Tower's skybridge.

While the concourse is helpful in connecting the 2 towers, it is below ground, and highly unlikely for people to use that concourse when you got a bridge above ground. It's probably faster, and people will enjoy a view at the same time.

Whoever said that the bridge will ruin the New York's "layout", you probably aren't reading and interpreting the statement I said. It is 25 feet- This is probably not even higher than most single family houses. 25 feet compared to a 900 and 1,300 foot skyscraper will make the bridge highly unlikely to be seen overhead, or on the Hudson River, or on West st. etc. If you were to look at pictures of the WFC, you would see mostly the 4 towers, not the bridge, because it is being blocked off by the taller towers. Same idea applies here.

It is also covered with glass, similar to the 4 and 3 WTC facade design. In simpler terms, it is almost clear. Highly unnoticeable and gives people huge access to both towers- both with the bridge, and the underground concourse.

Here's a quick pencil sketch of my idea; 4WTC is to the left, 3 WTC is to right:

[Big Towers]

^^^ Good idea, but bad design.

[NYguy]

Jonathan_Hawkins

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

You know, I was just thinking- Why don't Towers 3 and 4 have a "indoor bridge" connecting both towers, just like the World Financial Center?

That's the idea that the Port Authority was proposing, but the City was very much against it.

[Traynor]

^Well sort of. However that old proposal is not what The Grand Architect was suggesting. That render shows an atrium blocking the pathway, of course the city was against it. TGA was asking for a bridge between the towers to offer views and accessibility for both the towers AND the pedestrians below.

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by Traynor

^Well sort of. However that old proposal is not what The Grand Architect was suggesting. That render shows an atrium blocking the pathway, of course the city was against it. TGA was asking for a bridge between the towers to offer views and accessibility for both the towers AND the pedestrians below.

Thanks Traynor, you are by far the most helpful elaborator on this forum. We need more people like you on this forum.

To everyone else:

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, because I already know that the PA has this idea in the past; in fact, I even saw a similar diagram and I was very familiar with the idea of an atrium. I was well aware that the public rejected the idea of this atrium. But an atrium isn't a bridge. What baffles me is I used the word "bridge" several times in my previous posts, and you guys just went ahead and started talking about atriums. The atrium in the diagram doesn't look like a bridge to me.

And on top of that, I even included a quick pencil sketch as a visual aid. Besides, if I knew about the atrium being rejected a long time ago, why would I come back and start commenting on it? It's probably because I'm coming back to discuss a new idea.

[Rational Plan3]

Surely a bridge would only really be needed if a tenant was to occupy both buildings?

Otherwise why bother, I dislike bridges across streets as it blocks light and robs the street of activity. Besides isn't the street between pedestrianised? Also I think bridges spoil the design and form of a building.

[antinimby]

I agree. Skybridges only work when it's between related buildings such as the Petronas Twins.


http://www.thepetronastowers.com/wp-...as-towers1.jpg


Two buildings with obviously different designs don't work as well with skybridges.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, because I already know that the PA has this idea in the past; in fact, I even saw a similar diagram and I was very familiar with the idea of an atrium. I was well aware that the public rejected the idea of this atrium.

Simple answer: skybridges are not New York. It wasn't the public that rejected the atrium btw. What's being built is what we are getting. This useless speculation for what could or should have been is a conversation for the thread located here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166333

You are welcome to continue your discussion and drawings there.

[NYguy]

April 17, 2011

Dance of the tower cranes.