HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

One Vanderbilt in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram
New York Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 4:15 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There are no height limits, but the maximum floor-area-ratio is 30.

You could build the tallest building in the city here, but it would have to win design approval from the city.
pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what does floor area ratio even mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 4:17 PM
lakegz's Avatar
lakegz lakegz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beijing
Posts: 7,712
I'm pretty sure it means you can develop 30 times the amount of square feet that the lot has at ground level.
If you have a 1,000 square foot lot, then your building there can have a maximum square footage of 30,000 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 7:32 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakegz View Post
I'm pretty sure it means you can develop 30 times the amount of square feet that the lot has at ground level.
If you have a 1,000 square foot lot, then your building there can have a maximum square footage of 30,000 feet.
Correct. Also, you can arrange that square footage in any way in accordance with the other restrictions, so the developer can chose to maximize the FAR in the most efficient manner (squat box) or go for a taller building.

Using FAR limits the density of a building thus the resultant demand on city services, so it is a way of controlling how a city functions. NY also has those setback zoning guidelines that combine to make it rather difficult to be free to design a building without limitations. The setback laws are there to prevent the city from becoming too dark and imposing on the street.

It seems that FAR zoning is used in japan and has been criticized there for resulting in stunted skylines as developers aim to maximize FAR with boxy buildings that maximize the space in the most efficient way possible. I suppose it is cheaper to build a squat box than building a taller office building that does not use the entire area of the plot but instead compensates with height.

Why don't cities like London and Shanghai use FAR. Perhaps the lack of this zoning system results in more interesting designs?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 7:41 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,802
London has its own development nightmares regarding preservation of sight-lines, proximity to historic structures and rampant nimbyism. It'd be interesting to see an in-depth analysis of how this effects the form of tall buildings.

London claims to be the financial capital of the world, but you wouldn't know it comparing skylines with other world cities.

Last edited by uaarkson; Jul 19, 2012 at 9:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 7:49 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
London has its own development nightmares regarding preservation of sight-lines and rampant nimbyism. It'd be interesting to see an in-depth analysis of how this effects the form of tall buildings.

London claims to be the financial capital of the world, but you wouldn't know it comparing skylines with other world cities.
So, they don't have FAR, they have certain sites for possible skyscraper developments which then have to meet various restrictions on height, sight lines, and design quality? Does this lack of FAR restriction allow for a more interesting building design overall compared to a FAR system? There seems to be few areas where one can build tall tall buildings in London due to the airport and the sight line issue. The irreuglar plots and sightline issue do force archs. to be creative, thus we get the Shard and the Pinnacle.

I suppose in China it is just done on a case by case basis and there is no specific system to restrict bulk that covers the entire city.

Oh, and building height doesn't mean much when it comes to economic wealth-- i.e, switzerland

IMO, the design quality of NY would be improved if large proposals were reviewed on a case by case basis and there were no blanket zoning restrictions that allow developers to just put up tall boxes that maximize space with minimal expenditure. Desnity/Bulk could be granted to certain sites based on design quality and location, however this would lead to a slow down in building and fewer towers built due to NIMBY influence on city politicans.

Last edited by aquablue; Jul 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 8:17 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
I suppose in China it is just done on a case by case basis and there is no specific system to restrict bulk that covers the entire city.
Actually, China does have a regulation where builders are required to have a certain amount of green/open space for each square foot of building built. This does indirectly limit how much space is built. It being China however, I doubt it's adhered to rigorously.

Back to NY though, I do have to wonder what the effect of the minimum square footage and avenue frontage requirements will be. It seems like they were intended to reduce the desirablility of smaller prewar buildings for redevelopment.

For example, it seems like that limit would prevent the MTA headquarters from taking advantage of the extra air-rights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 8:26 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 16,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalziand View Post
For example, it seems like that limit would prevent the MTA headquarters from taking advantage of the extra air-rights.
Not necessarily.

The future MTA building owners could still access the Grand Central air rights (already in existence), or they could combine with the adjacent building to maximize the upzoned block rights.

The smaller, non-full block prewar buildings are all getting redeveloped anyways, regardless of this new zoning. Probably the majority have new facades and/or additions, and the passerby can't tell when most of these buildings were originally built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 11:39 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Using FAR limits the density of a building thus the resultant demand on city services, so it is a way of controlling how a city functions. NY also has those setback zoning guidelines that combine to make it rather difficult to be free to design a building without limitations. The setback laws are there to prevent the city from becoming too dark and imposing on the street.
The FAR in effect limits the heights of buildings (there's only so much space you can build), but the restrictions on setbacks and streetwall heights also limit designs of towers. Of course there is always the special permit process, where towers like 15 Penn and Tower Verre had multiple special permits. At One57, they specifically worked within the guidelines (envelope) of that site, and they're doing the same at 432 Park. Over on the west side, City Planning had in place a few sites with unlimited FAR, but the City Council wasn't comfortable with that, and limits of about 24 were put in for those sites (today we know them as One Hudson Yards, the Girasole, Sherwood Equities tower, and a couple of other sites.

What's planned on the east side will be similar, but with more options on how the FARs are built up. Developers will pay for the privilege and add other improvements to the City.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...NBn7V8YYokal4N

Grand Central’s grand plan


By Steve Cuozzo
July 17, 2012

Quote:

Contrary to what’s been published, there are no height limits in the area either in existing zoning or in the rezoning. Greater heights than today’s would be entirely a function of the enlarged FAR, which require more floors to accommodate more square feet, and thus a loftier building. Not that the new zoning would lead to a sprouting of tall “sliver” buildings — it requires “qualifying sites” to have full-block avenue frontage and a minimum 25,000 square-foot footprint.

7. What’s the catch with “as of right”? A developer would not have to go through time-consuming and costly ULURP. But they’d have to pay the city for each additional square foot desired to build in excess of the current 15 FAR or buy air rights. The payment to the city would buy a District Improvement Bonus (DIB) to help pay for transit and other public-oriented upgrades in the area.

...The new zoning won’t take effect until 2017, because Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden wants to protect the Hudson Yards District from competition in the short run. Or even the appearance of competition — since many real estate insiders say that a rezoned Midtown East wouldn’t really compete with Hudson Yards, which will have larger footprints and floor plates and lower tenant costs due to subsidies. While Burden is committed to Midtown’s long-term future, she’s passionate about letting nothing interfere with or dilute interest in Hudson Yards right now. She told us, “We believe we need this time, five years, for these new [Hudson Yards] buildings to anchor. We want to send a crystal-clear signal that Hudson Yards is an enormous priority for the [Bloomberg] administration.”
It also gives time for qualifying sites to allow current leases to run their course.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 1:56 AM
lakegz's Avatar
lakegz lakegz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beijing
Posts: 7,712
Just been thinking about this but doesn't a FAR of 30 seem pretty low, especially when headlines are saying that this area will be rezoned so "large" towers can be built to keep the area competitive?
I mean, a 30,000 sq foot lot (which I think is pretty big) can only have 900,000 sq foot max tower built on it. It seems like all the new large office towers of this generation are in the 1.2-1.8 million sq foot range. (heck 4WTC has 1.8 million sq feet)
To get a building with the sq footage of just 4 WTC, you would need a lot of 60,000 sq feet, which is roughly the same size of 55 water street's gargantuan floor plates.
I just think a FAR of 30 seems rather low for such an upgraded rezoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 5:41 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakegz View Post
Just been thinking about this but doesn't a FAR of 30 seem pretty low, especially when headlines are saying that this area will be rezoned so "large" towers can be built to keep the area competitive?
I mean, a 30,000 sq foot lot (which I think is pretty big) can only have 900,000 sq foot max tower built on it. It seems like all the new large office towers of this generation are in the 1.2-1.8 million sq foot range. (heck 4WTC has 1.8 million sq feet)

I just think a FAR of 30 seems rather low for such an upgraded rezoning.
It's double what's allowed now (15). The highest FARs in the Hudson Yards are 34 - and those are on sites that were previously unlimited. The original WTC complex was a state development, which supersedes City zoning, but even then you have to consider the size of the WTC site. The new towers at the WTC are large, but they are basically replacing space that was already there, even as the superblock is broken up. Were it strictly City zoning, it's not likely all of those towers would be as large.

The new zoning on the east side is meant to encourage owners of larger sites to build towers that can accomodate larger office buildings. As it is now, they cannot build up to even current size, so more had to be done to encourage new construction. In other words, with the new zoning, not only would they be able to build as large, they could build larger, as of right. The larger the footprint, the larger the tower. But even if you demlished a tower today and built up to the same size, it will be taller because of the higher ceiling heights demanded of modern office towers.

To get that 30 FAR though, the design itself will have to be impressive enough to the City Council and City Planning which will have to grant approval. Look for Hines and SL Green to select from the growing list of "starchitects". It would be sweet justice if Nouvel were brought in to design another glorious tower here, especially since they are using the form of the Tower Verre as exceptional architecture.

__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 7:18 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 16,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakegz View Post
I just think a FAR of 30 seems rather low for such an upgraded rezoning.
The FAR is for the full lot. In that context, 30 sounds pretty big to me. Given Grand Central lot sizes, that could easily produce 3 million square foot towers, or even bigger.

I don't think Hudson Yards has as-of-right FAR 30, and you could build supertalls all over the place in Hudson Yards.

Can you, offhand, think of a building that's significantly bigger than FAR 30 anywhere on earth?

Again, it's the lot, not the building, so most supertowers (Burj Khalifa and the like) would have a relatively low FAR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 8:22 AM
lakegz's Avatar
lakegz lakegz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beijing
Posts: 7,712
Aren't most blocks in midtown owned in pieces by several developers? It's not so likely that a complete lot would be owned by one developer so with that in mind, I just think it would be more reasonable to put in a slightly higher FAR.
Even if a developer acquires rights to a whole block like in this case, the block's dimensions are still only 40,000 sq feet, limiting lots like this to 1.2 Million Sq Feet.

I don't know the specific dimensions or land use details but it seems that a building like 1 Liberty Plaza would have a higher FAR than 30. I just know that building has around 2,000,000 sq feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 12:43 PM
401PAS's Avatar
401PAS 401PAS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 235
[/QUOTE]

42nd Street... What a Great Street!! this would be amazing to have something of this height next to Grand Central Terminal. I know that the building represented in the rendering is just for height representation, but it reminds me of the Shard in London. A beautiful building and I would say not out of place in this location (just a little taller please... ;-))

With the LIRR extension into GCT, this site would be within walking distance (literally across the street or accessed via underground passage way) of all commuters from CT, Westchester County (and other upstate areas of NY) as well as Long Island.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 4:46 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,582
Could they make that tower taller if they redistributed some of that bulk from the middle of the tower upwards? Basically a taller tower would look skinnier after an initial setback compared to the fat sloping tower we see on that render?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2012, 1:37 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I don't think Hudson Yards has as-of-right FAR 30, and you could build supertalls all over the place in Hudson Yards.

The so called "four corners" towers of the Hudson Yards all have FARs of 33. Previously, those sites were of unlimited FARs. The tower here will gain bulk through a similar process...

UNLIMITED



MAX 33 FAR



A look at FARS throughout the Hudson Yards for context...





Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Could they make that tower taller if they redistributed some of that bulk from the middle of the tower upwards?
That's just an image of the Tower Verre placed in as an example of a tower with an iconic design. It's not what will be built. That being said, the bulk of the tower can be fit out in a variety of ways, in and out of zoning, since it will require a special permit.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2012, 3:53 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,582
Whats the logic in stepping down the bulk (FAR) in HY as you get closer to 42nd st?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2012, 5:16 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Can you, offhand, think of a building that's significantly bigger than FAR 30 anywhere on earth?
Trump Tower Toronto was going to be 46 FAR at one point. I'm not sure if that was the tower that ended up getting built, or one of the previous, taller proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2012, 8:56 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Whats the logic in stepping down the bulk (FAR) in HY as you get closer to 42nd st?
The area around 42nd and north(Hell's Kitchen, Clinton) is predominately residential, so I guess they don't want to overwhelm that area with tons of supertalls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2012, 12:26 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,469
Well, at least there won't be a cheesy plaza in front of the building...


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...36vmKxEuYmO8VM

By Steve Cuozzo
July 30, 2012

Quote:

When the city gets around to making Vanderbilt Avenue a “pedestrian mall,” don’t expect a remake of Times Square. The rethinking of Vanderbilt is coming from the Department of City Planning, not the Department of Transportation.

Although plans are far from complete, it sounds like Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden has no taste for another cheaply paved plaza with temporary furniture. She told us the idea is to “bring elegance and stature befitting the distinction of the location.”
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2012, 10:04 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Well, at least there won't be a cheesy plaza in front of the building...


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...36vmKxEuYmO8VM

By Steve Cuozzo
July 30, 2012
They should renovate the times square plazas and make them permanent, with proper paving and street furniture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.