NEW YORK | 15 Central Park West - 35 (2 Towers) | (2) 550 FT / 168 M | (2) 35 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by sfcity1

I wish the residential buildings in NYC were being built as large as the ones in Chicago. The buildings in chicago are going up between 600 feet and 1200 feet. Almost twice the size. Does something sound wrong with wanting NYC to build residential buidlings as tall and complex as Chicago?

It's not the "city" that builds the towers, but the developers. New York has had its share of 150 story residential tower proposals. The largest towers going up in New York now just happen to be commercial towers, that's where the action is. Just the opposite in Chicago.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by antinimby

I agree but unfortunately NY is backwards as compared to Chicago and often gives into height-fearing NIMBYs, so zoning is much more stricter here. I don't know the exact situation over there in Chicago, but in NY each plot is allotted only a certain amount of buildable space called FAR's.

Some sites have very low FARs and I'd be willing to bet that even the highest ones in NY doesn't come close to those allowed in Chicago. Therefore, to reach the heights as those in Chicago, it would take a massing of a huge plot of land, which is not only a very difficult task to do but nearly impossible to make it economically worthwhile.

As mentioned in the previous post, is has nothing to do with NY being "backwards". Residential towers don't require massive footprints, and many are built as of right (see Trump World, Gehry's Beekman Tower). Again, its a matter of the develper. It's true that NY has zoning restrictions in certain areas, but Manhattan's skyscraper core is much larger than Chicago's, and taller residential towers could be built in Manhattan, despite zoning. What you find now is developers pushing for taller and larger office towers, with residential put on the back burner.

At 876 ft, Gehry's tower would be NY's tallest residential tower (just beating out Trump's). But it would be just the fifth tallest under construction in Downtown alone. That tells you something.

[Fabb]

Originally Posted by toddguy

This looks like a great design and any city should be proud to have it. It blends in and yet seems modern at the same time somehow. Love it!

It does blend (too much ?) into its environment. I fail to see how it's modern.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Fabb

I fail to see how it's modern.

I think that's the point. From the outside at least.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by NYguy

As mentioned in the previous post, is has nothing to do with NY being "backwards". Residential towers don't require massive footprints, and many are built as of right (see Trump World, Gehry's Beekman Tower). Again, its a matter of the develper. It's true that NY has zoning restrictions in certain areas, but Manhattan's skyscraper core is much larger than Chicago's, and taller residential towers could be built in Manhattan, despite zoning. What you find now is developers pushing for taller and larger office towers, with residential put on the back burner.
At 876 ft, Gehry's tower would be NY's tallest residential tower (just beating out Trump's). But it would be just the fifth tallest under construction in Downtown alone. That tells you something.

I know how much it can bruise someone's ego when I say NY is backwards but as a New Yorker myself, I'd readily admit that NY is definitely backwards when it comes to its zoning for skyscrapers.

This is not so much a put down of the city as much as it is being honest about its the zoning policies.

The Trump tower in Chicago is over 1100 ft. and it's not even thin. There's no way a similar sized tower would be possible in New York under the current zoning (outside special areas like the West Side).

And even if they could gather that much air rights to build something that size, the plot alone would take up entire blocks, something Trump Chicago doesn't need to do.

Don't bring the WTC towers because the site is not governed by city zoning.

[sfcity1]

Originally Posted by NYguy

As mentioned in the previous post, is has nothing to do with NY being "backwards". Residential towers don't require massive footprints, and many are built as of right (see Trump World, Gehry's Beekman Tower). Again, its a matter of the develper. It's true that NY has zoning restrictions in certain areas, but Manhattan's skyscraper core is much larger than Chicago's, and taller residential towers could be built in Manhattan, despite zoning. What you find now is developers pushing for taller and larger office towers, with residential put on the back burner.

At 876 ft, Gehry's tower would be NY's tallest residential tower (just beating out Trump's). But it would be just the fifth tallest under construction in Downtown alone. That tells you something.

Except trump in Chicago was able to build close to 400 additional feet on his tower in Chicago than in NYC. Trump International was supposed to be 90+ story 1000 footer but was knocked down to what it is now. Trump's boldest buildings are not in NYC.

Point is, NYC should be seeing alot more boldness and height. People will keep knocking Dubai, but you put one of those buildings being developed into NYC, and I bet you everyone on this board will go crazy about it.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by NYRY85

..do we really need to?

id vouch CPW better than any u/c in Chicago, height doesnt matter.

I disagree to a point. CPW is not awesome from an architectural perspective. Where is suceeds is the quality of building materials, such as the incredible limestone facades which nobody else can afford to do anymore.

Aqua in Chicago, which is under construction, along with The Legacy at Milenium Park, also under construction, are examples of great architecture.

As far as NiMBYs, Chicago's are just not as powerful and the local government is more pro architecture, especially tall and thin verser shorter and more squat.

Also, disguised parking podiums in towers are more common in Chicago because basement parking levels are more difficult in the soggy ground.

[CoolCzech]

I'm glad some of the new buildings being put up have a "retro" look... stone towers with a distinctly non-modern look are a classic New York City feature, and add to the city's class. It also goes to show that demolishing the Hotel Penn won't be such a disaster - more classic buildings can be put up.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I'm glad some of the new buildings being put up have a "retro" look... stone towers with a distinctly non-modern look are a classic New York City feature, and add to the city's class. It also goes to show that demolishing the Hotel Penn won't be such a disaster - more classic buildings can be put up.

I couldn't agree more.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

As far as NiMBYs, Chicago's are just not as powerful and the local government is more pro architecture, especially tall and thin verser shorter and more squat.

Also want to add that NIMBYs are only as powerful as the government lets them. If the local government has some backbone (very few do as they worry about getting elected again) and ignore them, then the NIMBYs are pretty much powerless.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

I disagree to a point. CPW is not awesome from an architectural perspective. Where is suceeds is the quality of building materials, such as the incredible limestone facades which nobody else can afford to do anymore.

Aqua in Chicago, which is under construction, along with The Legacy at Milenium Park, also under construction, are examples of great architecture.

So Aqua and Legacy are better architecture than all those boring limestone buildings on CPW? The Century, The Majestic, The Dakota, the Natural History Museum; these are all ho hum buildings that are decent, only because they were built with nice materials. But throw some curvy balconies on a square building, now that is brilliant architecture. Hilarious.

[sfcity1]

Originally Posted by pico44

So Aqua and Legacy are better architecture than all those boring limestone buildings on CPW? The Century, The Majestic, The Dakota, the Natural History Museum; these are all ho hum buildings that are decent, only because they were built with nice materials. But throw some curvy balconies on a square building, now that is brilliant architecture. Hilarious.

We are comparing new construction with new construction.

I would not compare the Dakota to 15 CPW. Also, building materials and architecture are two different things. They could have done better especially when using expensive materials.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by sfcity1

Except trump in Chicago was able to build close to 400 additional feet on his tower in Chicago than in NYC. Trump International was supposed to be 90+ story 1000 footer but was knocked down to what it is now. Trump's boldest buildings are not in NYC.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you're talking about Trump Chicago, yes, it was supposed to and could have been taller. As I mentioned before, Trump has had his share of taller proposals in Manhattan, much taller than what he's building in Chicago right now. Trump World Tower in New York was built as was allowed at that site.

Point is, NYC should be seeing alot more boldness and height. People will keep knocking Dubai, but you put one of those buildings being developed into NYC, and I bet you everyone on this board will go crazy about it.

New York has plenty height. You seem to forget that after a certain height, it doesn't pay for developers to keep going up. Most of the action in New York is in office construction. In Chicago, the tallest towers are residential, where you can afford to have smaller floorplates reaching into the sky (Chicago Spire is a perfect example). Of course, you'll get the taller residential proposals again in Manhattan. But right now, most of the developers who could pull it off aren't concentrating on that.

[NYRY85]

office is a major necessity in NYC right now.

is there a time when it wasnt?

[ramvid01]

Originally Posted by NYRY85

office is a major necessity in NYC right now.

is there a time when it wasnt?

Its hard to say. There are many factors such as office conversions to residentials and the lack of new office space going up that really tip the scales in favor of building more office buildings. I would say its a combination of both right now.

Although admittedly, residential demand is still pretty hot.

[NYRY85]

which doesnt necessarily equate to less of a demand for office, we need office and residential more than ever right now.

[kznyc2k]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I'm glad some of the new buildings being put up have a "retro" look... stone towers with a distinctly non-modern look are a classic New York City feature, and add to the city's class. It also goes to show that demolishing the Hotel Penn won't be such a disaster - more classic buildings can be put up.

You think a "classic" building will go up at the Hotel Penn site? It's going to be a big huge office building, and when was the last time we got a new one of those that had classic features, and by that I mean specifically stone? ..Bear Sterns in 2001? We're getting glass and steel here; nothing more, nothing less.

[CoolCzech]

^Yeah, but stone buildings - like this particular tower - are ALSO being put up. I like stone buildings, AND I like glass and steel towers too. No reason why we can't have both.

[kznyc2k]

You're preaching to the choir, cause I like 'em both too. But with that site I hold no expectations of getting anything other than a "2007 contemporary corporate" design, which means no stone, be it precast, limestone or even Quincy granite. Nope, it's "glass and steel or bust!" lol

[Patrick]

I like. I like a lot.