NEW YORK | 30 Hudson Yards (North Tower) | 1,296 FT | 92 FLOORS - Page 113

Vertical_Gotham · #**2241** Posted **Jul 8, 2015, 4:00 AM**

Four other large tenants are focusing on Hudson Yards: Boston Consulting Group, Discovery Communications, Milbank Tweed and Major League Baseball.
http://nypost.com/2015/07/07/first-o...medium=twitter

Quote:

BCG, represented by CBRE, is getting serious about moving to 200,000 square feet at the first Related/Oxford-owned 30 Hudson Yards tower. This is where Coach, SAP and L’Oreal already have signed deals.

The company is now located at 430 Park Ave.

Discovery is further east in 170,000 feet at 850 Third Ave. and, in the words of one broker who requested anonymity, is now “banging around” Hudson Yards, including all the towers planned by several eager developers.

JR Ewing · #**2242** Posted **Jul 8, 2015, 11:12 AM**

Awesome news, VG !

TechTalkGuy · #**2243** Posted **Jul 8, 2015, 4:59 PM**

Special Design

NYguy · #**2244** Posted **Jul 13, 2015, 3:00 AM**

(July 11, 2015)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Pete8680 · #**2245** Posted **Jul 13, 2015, 11:50 PM**

Got 2 b close 2 500 feet now.

timpdx · #**2246** Posted **Jul 13, 2015, 11:57 PM**

What is up with the "Corset" tower, according to that diagram released a while back that should be out of the ground by now and be well on its way by end of year?

NYguy · #**2247** Posted **Jul 14, 2015, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by timpdx

What is up with the "Corset" tower, according to that diagram released a while back that should be out of the ground by now and be well on its way by end of year?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...198162&page=12

NYguy · #**2248** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 3:52 PM**

Stupid article, but you can gather that from reading...

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.2294285

WEST SIDE vs. WORLD TRADE CENTER:
Midtown real estate mega-projects have a leg up on downtown

July 16, 2015

Quote:

If you build it, they will come — unless it’s the World Trade Center.

The gleaming towers surrounding Lower Manhattan’s hallowed ground are supposed to be a symbol of the area’s Phoenix-like rise from the ashes — but instead the area is starting to lose the battle for tenants against exciting new projects on the far West Side of Manhattan.

The big-name tenants that ink deals for 100,000 or more square feet of space are repeatedly eschewing downtown for the West Side, where Stephen Ross’ Related Companies is building a 16-skyscraper development, and Brookfield Properties is building Manhattan West, a 5.4 million-square-foot mixed-use project by office giant Brookfield Properties west of Penn Station.

“The ‘wow’ factor is just greater at Hudson Yards,” said Leon Manoff, a vice chairman at the commercial brokerage firm Colliers International, referring to the Related Companies’ 16-skyscraper West Side rail yard project. “There’s just not the same mystique surrounding the downtown market.”

http://gothamist.com/2015/07/15/huds...k.php#photo-15

Checking In At Hudson Yards, Manhattan's Enormous New Luxury Neighborhood

BY JAKE DOBKIN
JUL 15, 2015

Quote:

If you haven't been up to Javits Center or the top of the High Line, you might not be aware how much construction is going on around the new Hudson Yards. One building is nearly topped out on site, and a massive deck has been laid for several others soon to come. At least ten cranes dot the site, some dozens of stories tall. And it's all surrounded by an enormous amount of other development at nearby sites— along the High Line to the south, Manhattan West a block east, and heavy construction along the new 7 Train extension to the north.

This morning we went over for a tour of the current state of development. Most of the work is going on in the East Yard, which is between 10th and 11th Avenue, and 30th and 34th Street. This plot will soon be occupied by four office buildings, a huge mall, the mind-boggling Culture Shed (which slides open to create an enormous concert hall), a hotel, a residential building, and a big "Public Square."...

(Jake Dobkin)

O-tacular · #**2249** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 5:08 PM**

This may sound like a stupid question, but a bunch of supertalls built above an active railroad seems like an accident waiting to happen. Besides the obvious terrorist potential what if a combustible substance in one of the cars were to ignite accidentally, or there was a derailment? Wouldn't the potential for all the buildings being compromised and falling over be massive?

mattymatt88 · #**2250** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 5:50 PM**

^^^The trains are electric powered and they only move about a mile an hour at that point of the tracks. I suppose anythings possible though

O-tacular · #**2251** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattymatt88

^^^The trains are electric powered and they only move about a mile an hour at that point of the tracks. I suppose anythings possible though

I'm thinking more of railcars with oil or combustible substances in them than the engines themselves. Hell even something like a car of sulfur flipping could be dangerous. I know we can't live in a bubble forever but this development just seems like it would be the perfect magnet for terrorist attacks.

BoM Trespasser · #**2252** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 10:44 PM**

I'm sure someone else has better information, but in the meantime, in all the images of the rail yard I have seen: only subway cars in the yard, as poster mattymatt88 states above . No freight cars that constitute freight trains hauling potentially hazardous chemicals and/or hydrocarbons.

TechTalkGuy · #**2253** Posted **Jul 17, 2015, 11:11 PM**

It seems that according to the article posted by NYguy, the West Side is basically a brand new city within a city.

NYguy · #**2254** Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This may sound like a stupid question, but a bunch of supertalls built above an active railroad seems like an accident waiting to happen. Besides the obvious terrorist potential what if a combustible substance in one of the cars were to ignite accidentally, or there was a derailment? Wouldn't the potential for all the buildings being compromised and falling over be massive?

NO, not at all. Those railyards were designed with the purpose of building the future platform above. Now, as far as the occasional "terrorist threat" that seems to pop up whenever we are talking skyscrapers, it would be much more likely for a terrorists to target Penn Station or Grand Central or one of the many, many subway lines that run through the city. I wouldn't be overly concerned with any potential fires. For example, even if the Coach tower had a massive fire, it wouldn't affect the retail podium or 30 Hudson, even though they are very close. These things are designed that way.

nyc_alex · #**2255** Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm thinking more of railcars with oil or combustible substances in them than the engines themselves. Hell even something like a car of sulfur flipping could be dangerous. I know we can't live in a bubble forever but this development just seems like it would be the perfect magnet for terrorist attacks.

These are passanger trains only. No passengers would be able to get a sufficient amount of explosive to take anything down without raising MAJOR eyebrows.

WTC 1993 involved over 1000 pounds of explosive and still "failed". You need to be very close to the steel as well since it gets exponentially harder to damage with linear distance. The trains won't be close enough. So while you can certainly do a lot of damage, you won't be taking down any skyscrapers with what you fit in your travel luggage. At least not with conventional terrorist means.

JR Ewing · #**2256** Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 3:09 AM**

Look closely. It appears that the steel is rising.

Today

O-tacular · #**2257** Posted **Jul 18, 2015, 7:48 PM**

Oh if it's passenger cars that makes more sense. For some reason I thought they were freight cars which would be a lot more risky.

BrownTown · #**2258** Posted **Jul 19, 2015, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Oh if it's passenger cars that makes more sense. For some reason I thought they were freight cars which would be a lot more risky.

There aren't freight cars anywhere near Manhattan. It's actually a big problem because it drives up prices and creates extra traffic having to ship stuff into the city and Long Island by truck.

Crawford · #**2259** Posted **Jul 19, 2015, 4:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm thinking more of railcars with oil or combustible substances in them than the engines themselves. Hell even something like a car of sulfur flipping could be dangerous. I know we can't live in a bubble forever but this development just seems like it would be the perfect magnet for terrorist attacks.

These are only suburban trains; there are no freight trains underneath Hudson Yards (or anywhere in Manhattan; closest freight line is in the South Bronx).

Are you generally opposed to underground passenger trains? You find all subway systems to be inherently dangerous? Most major cities of the world have underground passenger rail.

photoLith · #**2260** Posted **Jul 19, 2015, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm thinking more of railcars with oil or combustible substances in them than the engines themselves. Hell even something like a car of sulfur flipping could be dangerous. I know we can't live in a bubble forever but this development just seems like it would be the perfect magnet for terrorist attacks.

lol its not a CSX line or anything, they dont carry oil/natural gas or whatever on transit lines, especially there.