NEW YORK | 30 Hudson Yards (North Tower) | 1,296 FT | 92 FLOORS - Page 10

yankeesfan1000 · #**181** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 3:04 PM**

Wow. I don't know what it is, but I love the 1200 footer. That render you showed NYGuy really shows that if you don't like these towers, they'll be surrounded by plenty of other towers, and that doesn't show the new Javits Hotel which was supposed to be 60 stories if I'm not mistaken.

Only in NY could people be complaining about a development this massive getting going in this economy. But to each his own I suppose.

CoolCzech · #**182** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

I understand the sentiment that we don't need 2000ft towers in NYC. However, this is the same attitude that cities such as London and Paris had when NYC was building the Empire State and other scrapers. I think it is a dangerous attitude of complacency, the world is rapidly changing.

I wouldn't call modern London and Paris second-rate or somehow deficient cities. I'm not sure a 2K footer would improve Paris in anyway whatsoever.

My point about the Shanghai skyline, for example, is that the showiest towers are "trophy towers" built more for show than anything else, to announce China's growing importance (even as there is a stunning disconnect between the gleaming towers and the quality of life for hundreds of millions of Chinese) . I think NYC doesn't really need to make any announcements about its importance, and can therefore build towers based on economic need as opposed to nouveau riche insecurity.

The other factor to consider is how astoundingly dense Manhattan is: one can built a 2,700 footer in Dubai and have plenty of space all around. Where in Manhattan could you do that without the neighbors screaming bloody murder? Being in a position to consider the quality of life of the people down below is not something to throw stones at.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**183** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 4:15 PM**

just poor designs...its unfortunate that developers cant step up to the plate anymore and produce quality designs that enhance the skyline.

aquablue · #**184** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 5:28 PM**

terrible tower designs, looks like something out of the 1970s. i can see they went cheap here.

aquablue · #**185** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I wouldn't call modern London and Paris second-rate or somehow deficient cities. I'm not sure a 2K footer would improve Paris in anyway whatsoever.

My point about the Shanghai skyline, for example, is that the showiest towers are "trophy towers" built more for show than anything else, to announce China's growing importance (even as there is a stunning disconnect between the gleaming towers and the quality of life for hundreds of millions of Chinese) . I think NYC doesn't really need to make any announcements about its importance, and can therefore build towers based on economic need as opposed to nouveau riche insecurity.

The other factor to consider is how astoundingly dense Manhattan is: one can built a 2,700 footer in Dubai and have plenty of space all around. Where in Manhattan could you do that without the neighbors screaming bloody murder? Being in a position to consider the quality of life of the people down below is not something to throw stones at.

i never said paris/london were second rate. i said that they had the attitude of ' we don't need such monstrosities in our city' when american cities were building tall. Until a recent awakening they were relying on their old buildings and very little good architectural innovation was taking place in those cities for years as their attempts to build tall were either poor efforts or shot down by fear.
the same thing could happen to new york, wallowing in its own false sense of superiority, while building digusting boxy buildings such as these and thinking they are somehow a step foward when they are clearly going retrograde.

aquablue · #**186** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

just poor designs...its unfortunate that developers cant step up to the plate anymore and produce quality designs that enhance the skyline.

I guess related are a very conservative company. What a missed opportunity.

Does anybody know if the tower on the left reaches 1200 by means of the spire or is it to roof? Is the smaller tower in the 800-900 range?

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**187** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

I guess related are a very conservative company. What a missed opportunity.

Does anybody know if the tower on the left reaches 1200 by means of the spire or is it to roof? Is the smaller tower in the 800-900 range?

i was expecting more even though it was related developing this. i mean i love the TWC and they did too.

aquablue · #**188** Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

i was expecting more even though it was related developing this. i mean i love the TWC and they did too.

the twc towers are conservative boxy towers too. I really thought Brookfield had some interest in modern design, but related is ultra conservative in its design approach.

CoolCzech · #**189** Posted **Mar 12, 2011, 3:17 PM**

I like how the massing of those towers seems to frame the ESB. I wonder if that was partly the architect's intent?

patriotizzy · #**190** Posted **Mar 12, 2011, 7:38 PM**

^^ Are those the final renders?

Roadcruiser1 · #**191** Posted **Mar 12, 2011, 10:39 PM**

Most likely yeah. Though there are hotels, residential buildings, parks, and smaller towers which aren't seen in these rendering on the rail yards there.

aquablue · #**192** Posted **Mar 12, 2011, 11:02 PM**

Can someone please explain why the had to add that awful little 3rd building instead of adding the space to the two other towers? Did they really need that building?

Also, why did they abandon the former plan with the twin towers on top of a retail podium?

The towers are a little ugly, especially the odd blue color they have chosen. I don't like the fact that they they are skinny at the top and use a spire to reach their height.

How tall do they both look to roof?

THB, the only good thing about this is the nice organic retail space that is quite unusual for NYC.

Can someone explain why they restricted the FAR given that residents are nowhere near the site and that this is the last real development site in Manhattan? It seems to be a stupid move to me. Max Far would have allowed some real tall mixed-use buildings. I could imagine a 1600 footer mixed use tower with residences + hotel. The views would be the greatest in the city. Alas, no. NYC is determined to restrain development even in this wasteland.

Such a pity Brookfield didn't do it. They have some taste at least and show signs of embracing innovative looking futuristic architecture. Related has the most boring taste in design, ultra conservative towers.

Obey · #**193** Posted **Mar 12, 2011, 11:45 PM**

I don't mind them. Nothing amazing but nothing fugly. And there's a spire. Pretty cool I guess.

Roadcruiser1 · #**194** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 2:04 AM**

I just don't like the tallest tower here. It just looks like a mess of a clutter. I would be happier if they came up with something more modern. I thought they would have came up with some cool Twin Towers or something, but that building is just bleech.

brian.odonnell20 · #**195** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 3:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Location of old and new proposals in the vicinity of the eastern yards...

Well wait, are all these guys still good to go? Because that would attract quite a bit of attention away from the main yards proposal.

I could actually deal with this proposal as long as 15 penn girasole and manhattan e/w eventually get built.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**196** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Well wait, are all these guys still good to go? Because that would attract quite a bit of attention away from the main yards proposal.

I could actually deal with this proposal as long as 15 penn girasole and manhattan e/w eventually get built.

15 Penn Plaza is awaiting a tenant to start construction, Manhattan West is starting construction within a year, Girasole is in site prep and awaiting the 7 lines construction,something tall will rise indefinitely at the World Product Centre site and the Sherwood Equities tower is still only proposed.

pj3000 · #**197** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 5:08 AM**

I'd kinda like to see anything built in this general area that doesn't have a goofy, cheap-looking antenna tacked onto the roof.

Gregory Jones · #**198** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 11:32 AM**

Seems like, everyone is waiting on something. Brookfeild is waiting on the 7 lie, Vornado is waiting for a tenant, The city is waiting on Vornado for Penn Station (post office). The city is waiting for NJ to say yes to the 7 line.

NYguy · #**199** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 1:10 PM**

^ What else would you suggest? If you have the money to finance these things, don't wast time talking to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I like how the massing of those towers seems to frame the ESB. I wonder if that was partly the architect's intent?

No, because as pointed out, the view will be blocked by other towers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

Can someone please explain why the had to add that awful little 3rd building instead of adding the space to the two other towers? Did they really need that building?

Also, why did they abandon the former plan with the twin towers on top of a retail podium?

The towers are a little ugly, especially the odd blue color they have chosen. I don't like the fact that they they are skinny at the top and use a spire to reach their height.

How tall do they both look to roof?

THB, the only good thing about this is the nice organic retail space that is quite unusual for NYC.

Can someone explain why they restricted the FAR given that residents are nowhere near the site and that this is the last real development site in Manhattan?

I suggest you contact Related with your hysterical questioning. No one here had anything to do with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obey

I don't mind them. Nothing amazing but nothing fugly. And there's a spire. Pretty cool I guess.

I find the spire to be the best thing about it, although the building is still a bit bulky. The towers being developed in that area are too evenly matched in height, meaning at least one or two of them need a spire. Otherwise we'll see a repeat of the early 70's when the WTC and other boxes changed the perception of the Manhattan skyline. Recent additions in Midtown has seen the skyline swing back the other way, but too many towers of similar height - even supertalls - could lead to an uninteresting skyline. Eliminate that 3rd tower, and the Great Room would be open to 10th Avenue. But there is the possibility of that one being hotel space.

yankeesfan1000 · #**200** Posted **Mar 13, 2011, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregory Jones

Seems like, everyone is waiting on something. Brookfeild is waiting on the 7 lie, Vornado is waiting for a tenant, The city is waiting on Vornado for Penn Station (post office). The city is waiting for NJ to say yes to the 7 line.

The 7 train is being extended out to this area and will be done in 2 years, what they are considering is extending the 7 into NJ to Secaucus I believe. This should get going soon, as was posted a few pages back:

From Curbed.com on 14 Feb 2011:

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/0...dson_yards.php

FAR WEST SIDE—Related's Stephen Ross said this year he's planning to rent out 3.5 million square feet of space in Hudson Yards office buildings that don't yet exist, but only Coach has publicly shown interest. With whom is Related negotiating? According to one tipster, Related "has deals" with Credit Suisse and "maybe" Hearst, but we'll file that under deep rumormongering. Does Hearst need more space? [CurbedWire Staff]

Hope this doesn't take this thread too far off topic, but is the Javits Hotel still planned or is it dead?