JERSEY CITY | 99 Hudson St. | 899 FT | 76 FLOORS - Page 6

chris08876 · #**101** Posted **Sep 12, 2015, 11:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

They probably don't care about NYC, it's just about the money.

Explains why they are are getting visas to live here, moving here in droves, and investing in the city (not just NYC but LA, SF, Seattle, ect.). They clearly dislike it.

Towers make statements. They are symbols of power, and prestige. Like super talls in China, they do not always make an immediate profit. Sometimes they stay vacant for a while until the fill up. Same is true here. The market does exist for a mega tall. We have a housing crisis (even with all of the towers rising), and a need for class-a office space. While super talls are risky, even in a booming market, its risky in the short term. If they are willing to lose money in the beginning, and play the waiting game, over the long-term the project will become successful. One could say the Chinese are bullish in their thinking. Think big or go home. They understand the psychological game when it comes too towers, and how it will result in landing tenants, and stealing the competition.

C. · #**102** Posted **Sep 12, 2015, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypothalamus

If the Chinese are seeking to make money (like everyone else), why would they not care about New York?

Obviously developers care about New York. However, Jersey City is attractive and it's a lot easier to build in Jersey City.

There is not one person who spoke in opposition when the COA proposed this tower. Can you imagine the push back such a tower would have received in New York. We're very supportive of development on this side of the Hudson. Many developments even receive generous tax breaks.

C. · #**103** Posted **Sep 13, 2015, 4:17 PM**

So this one was issued a partial building permit last month. We should start to see excavation any day now. If they wait too long, the risk running into winter problems.

C. · #**104** Posted **Sep 13, 2015, 4:42 PM**

Augmented copy from the city planning division development map. Orange is approved. Yellow has been proposed.

Yackemflaber69 · #**105** Posted **Sep 13, 2015, 11:52 PM**

So this isn't going to be a supertall.....
/

OBreaux1 · #**106** Posted **Sep 14, 2015, 5:34 AM**

At least there's still hope for a supertall at that 55 Hudson site. See: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218764

chris08876 · #**107** Posted **Sep 14, 2015, 9:12 PM**

Still positive news. Looking at the skyline of JC before 2000, it was absolute rubbish, but now, its growing in size that it has a skyline that is starting to look like a Northern Miami IMO (tall towers, beautiful waterfront, full of well to do young people, and the place to be).

I kinda forget I'm in JC with all of the developments. Walking around, it has transformed so much that you;d think your still in Manhattan. Likewise for Hoboken. Back in the 80's, it was a dumb, but now, its the creme de la creme. Having mayors like Fulop are great for the city. If only Hoboken has a pro-development mayor, some much needed supply could be built.

C. · #**108** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 10:00 AM**

So... I have it on good authority that this one has been reduced to 889 feet. It's a pity there isn't more FAR density assigned to the site.

http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/pa...n-the-rise.pdf

I'm saddened in a way because if the folks that support buildings like this showed up at the public meeting, the city could have easily allowed for a true 1000 footer. There was no opposition, yet no one to speak up in support. Think of it as reverse NIMBYism: YIMBYism!

TechTalkGuy · #**109** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 11:02 AM**

It's still tall enough to be noticed.
This type of crap happens quite often and it's annoying.

Zapatan · #**110** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA

So... I have it on good authority that this one has been reduced to 889 feet. It's a pity there isn't more FAR density assigned to the site.

http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/pa...n-the-rise.pdf

I'm saddened in a way because if the folks that support buildings like this showed up at the public meeting, the city could have easily allowed for a true 1000 footer. There was no opposition, yet no one to speak up in support. Think of it as reverse NIMBYism: YIMBYism!

Well the last we heard was 900ft cut down from 990 so really only an 11 foot decrease, still a tallest in JC. I'm not too upset about it, I'm sure there will be more 1000+ opportunities on that side of the river in the future.

C. · #**111** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 7:08 PM**

True, but there was no opposition on this one. None. The problem is no one spoke up in support had the public meetings. This one could have easily been 1000ft or taller had someone spoke up and supported buildings of these heights.

TechTalkGuy · #**112** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 7:18 PM**

True.
What I don't understand is why Jersey City is not an official borough of New York City.
Jersey City is closer to Manhattan than Staten Island, has a nice small skyline and offers breathtaking views of the Manhattan skyline.

It seems that some Manhattan suites have egos too large to acknowledge Jersey City having skyscrapers.

When we get international visitors, what message are we sending them?

Don't we want to proudly host skyscrapers everywhere possible for the most photographic experience possible?

Excuses, excuses!
We've heard them all here on SSP and we know better than that.

If you are an investor, this is the opportunity you've been waiting for.

artspook · #**113** Posted **Oct 29, 2015, 4:45 AM**

99 Hudson appears to be a very impressive design for Jersey's tallest.
It's sickening when the rare great skyscraper design finally comes around . .
and then they hatchet its height and/or stature . .

C. · #**114** Posted **Dec 8, 2015, 9:39 PM**

Issues with the FAA. 899ft is quoted.

TechTalkGuy · #**115** Posted **Dec 8, 2015, 10:00 PM**

The FAA is objecting by claiming that the building is too tall?

That is nonsense!

Yackemflaber69 · #**116** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 12:45 AM**

How could they be this stupid MANHATTAN IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND THEY GAVE A SHIT ABOUT IT. This is almost as bad as the crap that happens in Miami.

Gantz · #**117** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 12:50 AM**

What are those idiots at FAA thinking? This tower is literally 2 blocks away from the Goldman Sachs tower... Surely that tower has been "interfering" with the airspace for the past 10 years now...

chris08876 · #**118** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 12:52 AM**

"Substantial adverse effect"

FAA is a joke. I can somewhat understand the complains for Miami, but in JC, in a spot that's close to several 400m+ towers either u/c or completed....

Somehow though, they pose a threat to aviation. Sometimes I feel that the biggest NIMBYS are in the FAA. The ones who make these "recommendations".

Well, another reason why government should not get involved in real estate. All they do is cause delays, increase costs, and make our cities shittier. Building developers will look at aviation patterns. They don't need a nanny like the FAA. Last thing a developer wants is for his tower to go boom. That won't increase sales. Sure it will get some news coverage, but not in a good way.

NYguy · #**119** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69

How could they be this stupid MANHATTAN IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND THEY GAVE A SHIT ABOUT IT. This is almost as bad as the crap that happens in Miami.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz

What are those idiots at FAA thinking? This tower is literally 2 blocks away from the Goldman Sachs tower... Surely that tower has been "interfering" with the airspace for the past 10 years now...

It's ridiculous, but if I read it correctly they're saying anything above 837 ft in that location would be obstructive. Flight patterns around Manhattan are generally north and south. You could see how it could potentially be a problem from that perspective.

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the...f-flight-paths

New York area flight patterns seem aligned with Manhattan.

chris08876 · #**120** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 2:27 AM**

^^^^

Assuming its the same standard operating procedure that the FAA in Miami do, usually these height figures are recommendations or suggestions for developers, but not a line in the sand on what height to build up too.

In May/June of 2015 they pulled a similar stunt where they wanted to see many towers chopped from 700-999 ft all the way down to 399-500 ft. What eventually happens was that there was a sort of panic among the tabloids, but the FAA did approve those very towers they opposed at the heights that the developers wanted. The most damage done was a 50 ft or so loss on some, but nothing dramatic. This being for Miami. Likewise for NYC and JC, they really don't have much say. But its still inane that they would even mention such comment, especially here.

As we've seen with projects in other cities, developers usually make some sort of deal. At worst, with any FAA recommendation, there could be a decrease, but nothing greater than 30%. These studies also go through revisions and further analysis which is a key word for keeping a height in the range that the developers originally aim for.