NEW YORK | 1 Manhattan West | 995 FT | 71 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Even forgetting the architecture, the Yards is vastly superior to Manhattan West by virtue of its vast green space with monumental fountains (check out Related's brochure), its vast retail space, its cinemas, etc.

All fine, but not neccessarily what companies are looking for when considering location. It's about the space, price, etc. When you factor in that the two developments are neigbors, none of that really matters anyway. But the two developments together wouldn't be able to house all of the tenants looking for space.

Currently, there are an estimated 40 tenants looking for more than 200,000 square feet each, hunting for an aggregate of 14 million square feet. Some of the biggest include Time Warner, News Corp. and Credit Suisse — firms that brokers say are all looking for at least 1 million square feet of space.

To catch these big fish at Manhattan West, Brookfield is deviating from its usual strategy of handling leasing in-house, and has tapped a team led by Bruce Mosler, the chairman of global brokerage at Cushman & Wakefield, to help with the lease up. While construction hasn’t started at the site, a company in Italy is building a sophisticated piece of construction equipment that will be shipped here to build the $300 million platform over the site’s commuter train tracks, Larkin said. While construction on the platform will move forward once that mechanism is delivered, the company will not start constructing the actual towers until it signs an anchor tenant, he said.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Even forgetting the architecture, the Yards is vastly superior to Manhattan West by virtue of its vast green space with monumental fountains (check out Related's brochure), its vast retail space, its cinemas, etc.

But then again you have to put into consideration the amount of space the buildings on the actual Hudson Yards (railyards), have compared to the Manhattan West development which has 3 buildings sitting on a "small(er)" parcel of the railyard.

[Eidolon]

At least something is happening...

[1Boston]

What's the status of this? When do they plan to start construction? And would they start with the taller one or shorter one first?

[Zapatan]

The newer renderings show two smaller buildings of the same height, but I don't know if that's final.

aka. there may not be a supertall on this site because there are now three towers, so less height may be needed, but I may very well be wrong, little is still known about this project.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

What's the status of this? When do they plan to start construction? And would they start with the taller one or shorter one first?

Posted just above.

While construction hasn’t started at the site, a company in Italy is building a sophisticated piece of construction equipment that will be shipped here to build the $300 million platform over the site’s commuter train tracks, Larkin said. While construction on the platform will move forward once that mechanism is delivered, the company will not start constructing the actual towers until it signs an anchor tenant, he said.

[hunser]

therealdeal.com



Seems like the taller tower is just slightly over 1,000' whereas the shorter one remains 935'.

[Zapatan]

Yea the taller tower got shorter

Figures as much, I think that many 1200 footers for the west side would not have been realistic.

[NYC GUY]

^^^
Judging by the picture it looks like its a bit taller than ESB's 86th floor Observation deck.

[Eidolon]

Oh well, at least the skyline will look better, these towers had the least interesting design out of everything going up west of the ESB. The only way they could become exceptional with the curent design is if they chose to combine the current twins into one tower almost 2000 feet tall.

Lets get the steel rising

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by hunser

therealdeal.com



Seems like the taller tower is just slightly over 1,000' whereas the shorter one remains 935'.

Not so sure that's a new version. The new version calls for 3 towers - 2 towers of the same size, and a smaller 1 msf tower.




A different model, but same idea...





I've been thinking about the site, and wondering how they were now going to squeeze 3 large towers into that relatively small area, given the required circulation. Richard Meier's old plan for the MSG site gives me an idea how it could work. That plan was for 4.4 msf of space. The Manhattan West project is for about 1 msf more space.

[THE BIG APPLE]

The math would dictate that about 2 and a half msf would go for the tallest tower. Then 1.8 appox msf for the shorter office tower. That leaves about 1.1 msf for the 3rd tower. A total of appox 5 and a half msf.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

The math would dictate that about 2 and a half msf would go for the tallest tower. Then 1.8 appox msf for the shorter office tower. That leaves about 1.1 msf for the 3rd tower. A total of appox 5 and a half msf.

I feel like a 2 and a half msf tower would be higher than 1050 feet though these days.

Rumor has it, that there's a building higher than ESB planned on this site. Don't know if that's true or not though.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I feel like a 2 and a half msf tower would be higher than 1050 feet though these days.

Rumor has it, that there's a building higher than ESB planned on this site. Don't know if that's true or not though.

Where did you hear this rumor?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Where did you hear this rumor?

I think it was RobertWalpole who said who knew an insider. But you'll have to wait for him to confirm that.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I feel like a 2 and a half msf tower would be higher than 1050 feet though these days.

Rumor has it, that there's a building higher than ESB planned on this site. Don't know if that's true or not though.

2.5 msf would appox be a 1200 foot building. 1.8 msf would be an appox 900 foot building. 1.1 msf would be an appox 500-600 foot building (if it's office). It could be residential and go HIGHER, but wouldn't make sense, since there would be no good views (especially west, south, and east).

[Zapatan]

but it would be economically profitable to go higher if it was residential

If there really will be a 1200 footer, 900 footer and 700 somehting residential that would be freaking amazing.

[THE BIG APPLE]

But if your building has nothing but views of Hells Kitchen then there is no point to do residential.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

It could be residential and go HIGHER, but wouldn't make sense, since there would be no good views (especially west, south, and east).

The bulk of the site is zoned for commercial, not residential.

[RobertWalpole]

Brookfield has stated that the 1m sf tower may have residential and hotel components.