NEW YORK | 125 Greenwich Street | 912 FT | 70 FLOORS

[Sic'EmBears]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The American Stock Exchange building is being converted to a hotel.

This tower is going up on the adjacent annex site.

My apologies, I meant the red sandstone building. I've read that it has been demolished...that takes away some of New York's historic charm in my opinion.

[KevinFromTexas]

I love the height, but man I wish New York would return to interesting crowns. Anything up there would be good.

[gttx]

Wait - is this for real?!?

[Crawford]

Mods, merge with 22 Thames thread.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

Anyone know when the dump 70's box next door will come down?

Which "dump 70's box" are you referring to?

There's an adjacent 60's-era building housing a high school which is scheduled for redevelopment once the school's lease ends in a few years.

There's also the American Stock Exchange's 80's-era annex, and I don't know what's happening with that.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by gttx

Wait - is this for real?!?

Yes but a different address for the former 22 Thames rental building lot.

[Perklol]

^ Ah yes now I remember.

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

It appears that the only building coming down is a very attractive one on Greenwich and Thames. The bland lowrise on Trinity and Thames, which is adjacent to this, houses a high school for hoodlums. It and another (even uglier) high school next door (on the other side of Thames) were bought by a developer a few years ago subject to a lease by the NYC Dep't of Ed which runs until about 2020. (If someone Googles 90 Trinity, they will find the details.)

[JayPro]

It would seem that SSC forumer Ghostface79 is now citing a Daily News piece (FWIW; IDK) that seems to confirm the previously mentioned continuing flux in design development.

From GF79's post from early this morning;

New condo tower slated to rise on Greenwich St. will be the tallest residential building downtown
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1925292

Quote:
Move over, One World Trade Center. Another game-changing new development is set to irreversibly alter the downtown skyline.

A new condo project slated to rise at 125 Greenwich St. site will top 1,356 feet, making it the second tallest building downtown, just shy of its neighbor at One World Trade Center.

The building will be developed by former bad boy broker turned developer Michael Shvo alongside real estate company Bizzi & Partners. The partnership paid about $180 million for the site, formerly known as 22 Thames St., last week.

The building includes 10 plush full-floor penthouses and is being designed by starchitect Rafael Vinoly, who also designed 432 Park.

Renderings for the enormous 77-story tower, which bears a striking resemblance to the slimline megatower underway on Park Ave., were first dug up by the New York YIMBY blog, a pro-development site whose name is a positive twist on the classic "Not in my back yard" acronym.

A spokewoman for Shvo said the designs are subject to change. She also declined to comment on whether the prices of the apartments will be in same stratosphere as its Park Ave. doppleganger.
(The foregoing my *extreme* emphasis-JWP)

The building includes 10 plush full-floor penthouses and is being designed by starchitect Rafael Vinoly, who also designed 432 Park.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by JayPro

It would seem that SSC forumer Ghostface79 is now citing a Daily News piece (FWIW; IDK) that seems to confirm the previously mentioned continuing flux in design development.

From GF79's post from early this morning;

Hopefully the architect is subject to change as well.

[njcco]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Hopefully the architect is subject to change as well.

I agree. Vinoly would not be in my top 10 choices. No more supertalls from him, Norman Foster, RMS, Herzog & DeMeuron, David Childs, Adrian Gill for a while. Let's get some new talent into the pool. ANd if it is going to be all glass, for Pete's sake, make it gorgeous like the glass at 56 Leonard.

[King DenCity]

I believe, in my most humble opinion; the time be upon us to acquire a diagram. Am I wrong in my speculation?

[JayPro]

Not to be snarky or anything; but if you believe in your heart of hearts that to be the case, I would simply suggest taking the official 432P drawing and replacing the sheer concrete with a dull blue glass curtain wall and a cubed partition on top for the mech floorage.

But since two sources (one definitively culled from a legit source and the other of dubious attribution to YIMBY) have been brought to bear on a design change, I wouldn't do anything just yet.

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Not to be snarky or anything; but if you believe in your heart of hearts that to be the case, I would simply suggest taking the official 432P drawing and replacing the sheer concrete with a dull blue glass curtain wall and a cubed partition on top for the mech floorage.

But since two sources (one definitively culled from a legit source and the other of dubious attribution to YIMBY) have been brought to bear on a design change, I wouldn't do anything just yet.

You have no idea what you are talking about and none of your posts make any sense.

Also: another rendering.

YIMBY

[JayPro]

In the first place, your quoting me above is based on what I though should've been perceived as a facetious comment based on where I thought we were in this whole process. Boo on me, I suppose, for not "emoticonning" where a little bit of friendly toungue-in-cheek should have easily been inferred........

That said, I can't vouch for either of the two posters on the other site whose valuable contributions, if not exactly spot on, were at least IMHO worth quoting directly in the spirit of germane, debatable conversation. While the second chap had an ostensibly legit source, the other who "cited" your fine publication--not quoted, mind you, as for some reason beyond my ken there was nothing that I could see for him to quote--now seems to look quite the fool in more than a few pairs of eyes because no one has even now called him on the carpet one way or the other.
Heck, I repeateadly checked back to the YIMBY site to see if he was on to something, each time to no avail.

As I said before, any poster here associated with NYYIMBY is free to either corroborate or debunk whatever gets posted to this thread. You rightly accepted my challenge; and I sincerely appreciate that. But how am I in error for citing someone else's second/third-hand information that for all I know--save being told otherwise--could be either of at-best questionable provenance or flat out wrong?? Were I a fly on the wall at a typical YIMBY staff meeting, then perhaps I could sleep better knowing that matters of that sort would be addressed properly.

But, alas...........

[gttx]

Originally Posted by njcco

I agree. Vinoly would not be in my top 10 choices. No more supertalls from him, Norman Foster, RMS, Herzog & DeMeuron, David Childs, Adrian Gill for a while. Let's get some new talent into the pool. ANd if it is going to be all glass, for Pete's sake, make it gorgeous like the glass at 56 Leonard.

David Childs is retired.

Also, a certain set of designers are doing most of these supertalls because of the expertise and resources required to do something of this magnitude. You need exceptional technical know-how AND the ability to staff a huge team. That's why there are a lot more SOM supertalls out there than Joe Schmo architect working out of his basement. This seems self evident...

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by JayPro

In the first place, your quoting me above is based on what I though should've been perceived as a facetious comment based on where I thought we were in this whole process. Boo on me, I suppose, for not "emoticonning" where a little bit of friendly toungue-in-cheek should have easily been inferred........

That said, I can't vouch for either of the two posters on the other site whose valuable contributions, if not exactly spot on, were at least IMHO worth quoting directly in the spirit of germane, debatable conversation. While the second chap had an ostensibly legit source, the other who "cited" your fine publication--not quoted, mind you, as for some reason beyond my ken there was nothing that I could see for him to quote--now seems to look quite the fool in more than a few pairs of eyes because no one has even now called him on the carpet one way or the other.
Heck, I repeateadly checked back to the YIMBY site to see if he was on to something, each time to no avail.

As I said before, any poster here associated with NYYIMBY is free to either corroborate or debunk whatever gets posted to this thread. You rightly accepted my challenge; and I sincerely appreciate that. But how am I in error for citing someone else's second/third-hand information that for all I know--save being told otherwise--could be either of at-best questionable provenance or flat out wrong?? Were I a fly on the wall at a typical YIMBY staff meeting, then perhaps I could sleep better knowing that matters of that sort would be addressed properly.

But, alas...........

I have no idea what you are talking about or what posters you are referencing; the NYDN (and everyone else) used YIMBY as the basis for the story.

I do not know what challenge you are referring to, but I am 100% sure that your writing skills are terrible because you have typed three paragraphs without conveying anything coherent.

[NYguy]

No fighting please

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Im sorry i dont like it...I know i cant expect much from a site this small..but is it too much to ask for a defining crown..? 432 and 227 are boxy enough no more tall boxes, i wanna see more 30 HY and Steinway towers.

Yes, a defining or distinctive crown would be nice. But a tower of this size, with its small footprint and stretched height is going to be a box.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I love the height, but man I wish New York would return to interesting crowns. Anything up there would be good.

A defining crown would help it stand out more from the WTC towers, which all (except for 4) have defining crowns. Even 30 Park is distinctive in that regard.

Originally Posted by photoLith

Wow, this came out of nowhere!

Not really. We've been talking about it ever since Shvo got the site.

Originally Posted by deepen915

http://architizer.com/blog/vinolys-1...2-park-avenue/

Even a distinctive façade treatement, like 111 W. 57th will be getting, would make it stand out. A lot of people will simply think its part of the WTC complex, even more so if it gets built before tower 2.

On another note though, if this proves successful, and I think it will, I wonder how much it will influence other development in the area. 80 South will be a supertall, but who else will follow? We saw what happened on 57th.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NYguy

80 South will be a supertall, but who else will follow? We saw what happened on 57th.

There are no height limits in the area, and many development sites, so there could potentially be an explosion of supertalls. That whole Greenwich South area near the Battery Tunnel has millions of square feet of air rights alone.

All that said, I think Midtown will, in the long run, have far more residential supertalls.

[wilfredo267]

Will this be taller than wtc1 with a mech/crown element?

[jd3189]

This, together with 1 WTC, would fully replace the height mass Lower Manhattan had when the Twins were standing. And with the other WTC buildings, this area is going to be the second largest cluster of new supertalls in NYC, just behind what we might witness in Hudson Yards.