NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by NYguy

There was no source given, so for now it's as it is.

The research at YIMBY tends to be on the money, and has a consistent track record of being correct as they usually have documents that the general public doesn't see for a while. Well, for the rest of us, know that it is taller than what the record here states.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by NYguy

There was no source given, so for now it's as it is.

Didn't someone already say before the YIMBY story it was around 1,500 feet, and you said "No, No, the exact plan they were putting fourth was 1,496." Guess not.



http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/10/hei...feet-tall.html

[chris08876]

^^^

I want SSP to be accurate and this is another example of not updating info. Same thing with the construction status of projects. I understand the whole pictures, but sometimes they are not available as we do not have a ground army snapping pics, especially in certain cities. We have to rely on multiple sources, even if its text. Thats why projects for Florida or Seattle have been in the proposal section months longer than they should've even though they are u/c. If we want to compete with SSC and remain #1 ( Well, at least I think it is), we should update info and be precise. Even when it comes to title changes and moving threads around, many projects are severely outdated (some have been canceled, completed), are in the wrong sections cluttering the wrong forums, and this applies for numerous cities.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^

I want SSP to be accurate and this is another example of not updating info. Same thing with the construction status of projects. I understand the whole pictures, but sometimes they are not available as we do not have a ground army snapping pics, especially in certain cities. We have to rely on multiple sources, even if its text. Thats why projects for Florida or Seattle have been in the proposal section months longer than they should've even though they are u/c. If we want to compete with SSC and remain #1 ( Well, at least I think it is), we should update info and be precise. Even when it comes to title changes and moving threads around, many projects are severely outdated (some have been canceled, completed), are in the wrong sections cluttering the wrong forums, and this applies for numerous cities.

Agreed. Wrong thread titles (not just for New York projects) are really frustrating. 432 PA f.e. is still listed as 432m . I get it that NYguy can't do everything, since he is providing all the info. Someone here should update thread titles and move projects to the correct forums.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by hunser

Agreed. Wrong thread titles (not just for New York projects) are really frustrating. 432 PA f.e. is still listed as 432m . I get it that NYguy can't do everything, since he is providing all the info. Someone here should update thread titles and move projects to the correct forums.

There are some minor errors, I wouldn't make a big deal about it though. That's kind of nitpicking. NYguy will change the height when there is a little more confirmation of the height change. It's probably true, but we probably want to see it in a news article first.

For things in order to be changed you have to have mod powers, not just anyone can do it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Onn

There are some minor errors, I wouldn't make a big deal about it though. That's kind of nitpicking. NYguy will change the height when there is a little more confirmation of the height change. It's probably true, but we probably want to see it in a news article first.

But then why is any height listed for any building in SSP? This building changed height previously based on the same source and same diagram submitted to the city planning department, now the source has an updated diagram submitted to city planning department, and now no change at SSP.

The point is if you aren't going to accept the source, fine, but then why was there any height listed, ever? The height is a function of official filings, and this is an updated official filing.

[NYguy]

The reason I said we need a source is because there is very specific wording regarding the height in the public documents now making their way through the approvals process, and that doesn't change on a whim (they gave a 10 ft envelope for the height). It doesn't make sense to keep changing the height unless there is a source. It's already altered, so it'll stand as is until further clarification.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by chris08876

NYC is trying to not be like other U.S. cities which are parking lots and focus too much on automobiles. Its time to become like the rest of the world and have pedestrian oriented cities which focus on mass transit, and walkable areas. This city has been on the cutting edge of green technologies, and essentially becoming a European style city, only in the U.S.. Cities such as SF, DC, and Boston for example are focusing less on automobiles, and more on pedestrian interaction with the surrounding city scape which in my view, and the view of most urbanists, is the right way to go.

I have yet to see any european city that has blocked out entire blocks of streets for these pedestrian plazas that looks like shitty afterthoughts.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by gttx

I realize you already have a point if view, but I'll take the bait.

First, street closures in the city are few and far between. As in, only a handful have actually happened in the past decade. Most notably, of course, is Broadway in Times Square. Fortunately the planning commission (well, under Bloomberg - I can only hope our new mayor has continued some of it) doesn't push the classic "pedestrian promenade" running through a block or generally from nowhere to nowhere. This was an idea that created more harm than good, and it is not what these street closures are aiming for.

Which leads to the second point: these are targeted in areas that both 1. are already densely packed with pedestrians and 2. would not cause traffic to suffer negatively. At Grand Central, there are obviously enough pedestrians to justify such a closure, and the street in question is actually not used that much, given the viaduct around the station itself and the general congestion that is always there anyway. In fact, as with the Times Square example, you might find that traffic actually moves better, given the ripple effects of the closure.

Anyway, the overall point is that no one is suggesting that cars have no place in New York. In fact, for the past 80 or so years we have tried our best to give as much space as possible in this city to cars. Pedestrians and bikes are finally regaining some of the public right of way. I for one am happy to have a more balanced transportation system and a more interesting public realm.

Makes sense, but they could at least put more effort into the design of these plazas, not just pour some paint on the road and place a few shitty looking pots.

[antinimby]

They do more than that. They'll put in some patio furniture, too.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The North One

Makes sense, but they could at least put more effort into the design of these plazas, not just pour some paint on the road and place a few shitty looking pots.

They're showing two versions for that plaza, but that part of the project will be a city development. That could be bad or good. They're in the process of making over the Times Square plaza, which is an improvement. We'll just have to see. But the plaza is supposed to be "open" enough to allow a great pedestrian flow.

[Perklol]

a lot of posts are gone?

[chris08876]

This was posted on a thread at YIMBY forum:

Might be of some interest?

Possibly related to this project in terms of funding?

Opportunity Fund seeks $1.5 Billion for Private Equity Investment in Midtown Manhattan Office, Hotel and Condominium Buildings

NEW YORK, NY (November 3, 2014) – The Supertall Opportunity Fund, a newly launched closed-end real estate investment fund, will seek to raise U.S. $1.5 billion through a private offering that intends to invest significantly in ultra-luxury office, hotel and condominium developments, and related real estate assets.

The fund’s goal is to make not less than 90% of its investments in New York City assets, specifically in midtown Manhattan. The minimum investment will be U.S. $10 million. The fund manager reserves the right to accept commitments in a greater or lesser aggregate amount. Investors must subscribe to their investments in the fund within 12 months of the initial closing, which is expected to be in the third quarter of 2015.

Designed for accredited U.S. and non-U.S. institutional and high net-worth investors, the fund will target real estate investment trust (REIT) and Private Equity Real Estate Groups (PERE) for short-term and medium-term mezzanine debt and/or equity investments. The planning of the Supertall Opportunity Fund has been in the works for over six years and arrives at an extraordinary time for U.S. and non-U.S. accredited investors to participate in an aggressive New York City focused real estate fund. The fund will be managed by Supertall Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vandenberg Permanent Corporation.

Vandenberg and its subsidiaries, affiliates and predecessors, established as early as 1991, is a real estate investment, construction management, infrastructure and consulting firm that supports the energy, government services, minerals, civil infrastructure, power, industrial and commercial markets principally in the eastern United States. The company operates in four segments: real estate, construction management, infrastructure, and consulting.

For a term sheet or further information:

Fund Manager
Supertall Capital Management, Inc.
c/o Vandenberg Permanent Corporation
375 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10152

E: rwhite@vanperm.com
W: www.vanperm.com

[NYguy]

I doubt it has anything at all to do with this tower, but I like the name of it, and the implications.

The planning of the Supertall Opportunity Fund has been in the works for over six years and arrives at an extraordinary time for U.S. and non-U.S. accredited investors to participate in an aggressive New York City focused real estate fund.

http://www.mhpbooks.com/posman-books...grand-central/

Posman Books squeezed out of Grand Central

by Nick Davies
October 28, 2014

A longtime fixture at Grand Central Terminal, Posman Books is being forced out of its location there, Judith Rosen reports for Publishers Weekly. Due to ongoing real estate developments around the building, the bookstore has been asked to vacate the terminal, at least for the time being.

Posman has been in its Grand Central location for fifteen years, but yesterday it announced its departure via a letter being handed out to customers. General manager Robert Fader tells Publishers Weekly that the move is “directly related” to the renovations being done on One Vanderbilt, a proposed skyscraper that, if it’s completed, will dwarf the nearby Chrysler Building and claim the title of second-tallest building in New York, shorter only than One World Trade Center. Once vacated, the space will be used by developer SL Green to improve pedestrian flow through the terminal. (This is wishful thinking; no amount of improvements will stop the throngs of slow walkers from coming to an unexpected stop to gawk at the admittedly beautiful ceiling.)

[Perklol]

Is that Wanda tower?

[NYguy]

15 Penn Plaza and 1 Vanderbilt are really twin developments in different locations of Manhattan.

Both stand over and beside busy transit terminals, and will gain a bulk of their mass from transit improvements.

A little bulky in some of these renders, but a perspective on how it fits in the skyline...



www.cityrealty.com

[hunser]

^ I think it's the perfect mix: bulky office towers vs skinny residential towers. And both of them are very tall.

The design of 15 Penn is very solid, not much to complain about. 1 Vandy needs improvement, especially the top! I know it has gained height since, but there's still time to redesign the top. Also, it's one of those towers where a taller spire would actually look good.

[chris08876]

Its just incredible how much this tower dominates the ESB. Soon, it'll be like the ESB is in prison, and 1 Vanderbilt is bubba. This is going to look amazing from the NJ side. Another reason to land in LaGuardia preferably. Those East River views when landing are world class. Lets all hope for yet another height increase. Another 200 feet and a spire to dethrone 1 WTC. This is the ESB 2.0 in the making.

I'm definitely for skyscraper wars. If developers want to compete, I'm all for it.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Its just incredible how much this tower dominates the ESB. Soon, it'll be like the ESB is in prison, and 1 Vanderbilt is bubba. This is going to look amazing from the NJ side. Another reason to land in LaGuardia preferably. Those East River views when landing are world class. Lets all hope for yet another height increase. Another 200 feet and a spire to dethrone 1 WTC. This is the ESB 2.0 in the making.

I'm definitely for skyscraper wars. If developers want to compete, I'm all for it.

The only reason you would want to land in LaGuardia is if you want to contract a disease.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Its just incredible how much this tower dominates the ESB. Soon, it'll be like the ESB is in prison, and 1 Vanderbilt is bubba. This is going to look amazing from the NJ side. Another reason to land in LaGuardia preferably. Those East River views when landing are world class. Lets all hope for yet another height increase. Another 200 feet and a spire to dethrone 1 WTC. This is the ESB 2.0 in the making.

I'm definitely for skyscraper wars. If developers want to compete, I'm all for it.

The proportions of this tower, if rendered correctly in those images (don't think so) are pretty bad. Too bulky on all sides and the top still looks incredibly clumsy. A tall building it is, but Empire State Building 2.0 it is not. Let's hope if more height is gained, then sleekness is gained as well. The building looks like it needs a diet.