NEW YORK | Manhattan West | (3 towers ) FT | 60+/60+/57 FLOORS - Page 26

RobertWalpole · #**501** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 2:38 AM**

Anyone who "doesn't get her hopes up for NYC" is a fool. It's the king of skyscrapers. There is no city in a developed, first-world nation that is building skyscrapers like NY is. As the financial capital of the world, it has an unmatched demand for offices, hotels and condos.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**502** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 2:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea, this is a bad omen for the West side, if these supertalls are shortened, that means all of the proposed towers are likely to be. (15 Penn, Girasole, and whatever other towers there will be)

I never get my hopes up with NYC.

But as always, let's hope I'm very wrong...

Not necessarily, 15 Penn Plaza, Girasole etc. will just have to wait for tenants.

Zapatan · #**503** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 10:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Anyone who "doesn't get her hopes up for NYC" is a fool. It's the king of skyscrapers. There is no city in a developed, first-world nation that is building skyscrapers like NY is. As the financial capital of the world, it has an unmatched demand for offices, hotels and condos.

I'm a fool for thinking NYC can't built supertalls? look at the NYC skyline, we're seeing the first supertall constructed here in like 40 years... it should get better from here on but still..

It's called being realistic, after 3WTC, The manhattan west towers, and tower verre have all been shortened, you really think it's not gonna keep happening? I hope for NYC's sake that tons of supertalls get built too but I just can't forsee it, I am probably being a bit too pessimistic right now, I'll admit it, but I'm just sick of being dissapointed by this city, so I might as well air on the safe side and assume none of these supertalls will go through just to not be dissapointed.. and if they do, well then great

yankeesfan1000 · #**504** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 6:05 PM**

All those buildings got shortened for different reasons, and two are still 1000+ feet, and we still haven't heard anything from Brookfield on these. I agree that it looks like these two towers will be under 1000 feet, but until we hear something from Brookfield let's not get carried away.

And there's no indication that the Hudson Yards towers, 15 Penn especially given how much of a hassle it was for it to get approved, and the Girasole will be shortened at all, or any other potential NY supertalls for that matter. I also think we need to take a step back and realize these are two 900+ footers in a stagnating economy, these would be the 2nd and 3rd tallest buildings in LA, these are massive.

Again, I'm disappointed too. But this is one of many supertalls in the pipeline, and this decision was entirely up to the developer. It's clearly an evolving design, so who knows, maybe the demand for this will increase and they'll be forced to bring back the 1200 footer. Until we hear something from Brookfield, there are a handful of other supertalls to watch, and how many cities can claim that?

NYguy · #**505** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'm a fool for thinking NYC can't built supertalls? look at the NYC skyline, we're seeing the first supertall constructed here in like 40 years... it should get better from here on but still..

This thread is for discussion on Brookfield's Manhattan West development. If you wan't to pontificate on the prospects of supertall building in Manhattan, do so elsewhere.

Innsertnamehere · #**506** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 2:18 AM**

i would say that discussing the construction of supertalls in NY is fairly relevant to a thread based completely on a proposed supertall that is to built in NY.....

I agree with Robert on the fact that New york currently has the highest demand for new hotels and office towers in the developed world, though i disagree with his statement that it currently has the highest demand for condos. Toronto easily has it beat on that front. 35,000 condos were sold in Toronto in the last year. i can see 15,000-25,000 being sold in NY.

NYguy · #**507** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

i would say that discussing the construction of supertalls in NY is fairly relevant to a thread based completely on a proposed supertall that is to built in NY.....

It's only relavant as it pertains to this proposal. There are other threads if you want to talk about the prospects of supertall building in the city. Otherwise we would just put all New York supertall proposals in one thread and have a general discussion.

NYguy · #**508** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 1:50 PM**

Another quote from that WSJ article...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Quote:

Brookfield, one of the city's largest office landlords, has been in the neighborhood longer. For decades, it has pondered what to do with its large site along Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd Streets. Its current plans call for three to four towers on the site, and it says it intends to start construction on a necessary $300 million deck over a set of rail tracks under the site in the first quarter of 2011. The firm says it could deliver its first building in 2015.

"In January, we're starting the deck," said Ric Clark, Brookfield's chief executive, who added much of the initial work would begin offsite, assembling materials for the platform.

Crawford · #**509** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea, this is a bad omen for the West side, if these supertalls are shortened, that means all of the proposed towers are likely to be. (15 Penn, Girasole, and whatever other towers there will be)

What are you even referring to? There has been no new news on any of these sites.

And none of these sites even have concrete plans. They will be built based on tenant needs.

Lecom · #**510** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 2:55 PM**

Crawford is right. Shortening may or may not occur at projects across town regardless of Manhattan West's outcome. Besides, shortening happens for a variety of reasons - financial, aesthetic (Tower Verre, from the knucklehead aesthetic at CB5), etc. that vary case-by-case.

Thymant · #**511** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 3:32 PM**

Honestly I dont understand the point of shortening a tower when there is two towers. Why dont they just get rid of the shorter tower all together and just leave the taller one; wouldn't it get more reccognition that way?

Crawford · #**512** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thymant

Honestly I dont understand the point of shortening a tower when there is two towers. Why dont they just get rid of the shorter tower all together and just leave the taller one; wouldn't it get more reccognition that way?

Developers generally build to make money, not to win tall building contests.

Dac150 · #**513** Posted: **Oct 13, 2011, 7:09 PM**

Brookfield will build based on demand. That will ultimately determine the size of these buildings.

NYguy · #**514** Posted: **Oct 14, 2011, 6:29 PM**

BTW, that conversation on building supertalls is here...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194273

and here...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=177742

Meanwhile, another quote from that article about the building method here...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...west-side.html
Brookfield Saves in ‘Big Megillah’ Deck Plan for New York West Side Towers

By David M. Levitt
Sep 2, 2011

Quote:

Brookfield’s project, named Manhattan West, calls for two towers of 2 million square feet each and a third of 1.2 million square feet, plus as much as 200,000 square feet of retail space.

Brookfield’s platforms are needed to support a plaza between its towers, as well as an atrium and possibly retail space. The buildings themselves will be rooted in the bedrock to either side of the trench.

The company’s decking plan is unique because it involves building 30-foot-wide, 12-foot-high, and 8-foot-long T-shaped segments of the deck that are molded off site, then fused together to give them the strength to bear heavy loads, said Jim White, Brookfield’s vice president of construction. A previous plan would have involved about 50 support columns, taken three years and cost about $600 million. Now, only 21 columns would remain after completion. The insertion of the concrete segments saves time and money by letting Brookfield create the sections and the equipment that will erect the deck offsite, while preparing the location for building at the same time, White said.

babybackribs2314 · #**515** Posted: **Oct 14, 2011, 6:44 PM**

I passed by the site yesterday and there were images of the projects that are the ones just recently posted--basically twin towers, with a possible height reduction. Just FWIW...

RobertWalpole · #**516** Posted: **Oct 14, 2011, 7:51 PM**

As I have repeatedly said, it's impossible to infer from the rendering that the towers are 935 feet, as opposed to 1,100 feet or some other number. Furthermore, the tenants' needs will dictate the final shape and height of the towers.

If Brookfield signs Time Warner and Newscorp, for example, neither will require large trading floors which eat up a lot of square feet and reduce the height.

Roadcruiser1 · #**517** Posted: **Oct 14, 2011, 8:19 PM**

I am actually hoping for something that would be reminiscent of the original Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. It would fit right in. Come on Brookfield your idea is so similar to the people that designed the original World Trade Center so it should be the same.

Zapatan · #**518** Posted: **Oct 14, 2011, 11:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

As I have repeatedly said, it's impossible to infer from the rendering that the towers are 935 feet, as opposed to 1,100 feet or some other number. Furthermore, the tenants' needs will dictate the final shape and height of the towers.

If Brookfield signs Time Warner and Newscorp, for example, neither will require large trading floors which eat up a lot of square feet and reduce the height.

Dear holy mother of god, how many times do I have to explain this? In fact, I don't want to anymore but I will anyway.

read carefully so I don't have to explain yet again... If you look at the old rendering, it shows the 1215 footer with the 935 footer, if you look at the new, it is the exact same 935 footer on the right (unchanged) with the same tower on the left, a twin. The porportions are off, they are wrong to be anything more than 900 some feet. Plus they are both 2msf... a lot of hints there.

The only way I can see them being taller is if the rendering is wrong, or the facts from the article, or if a third tower is built taller.

RobertWalpole · #**519** Posted: **Oct 15, 2011, 12:46 AM**

The final parameters of these towers are not set and will depend upon who the primary tenants are in each tower. As I've stated, the configurations of these towers will be vastly different depending upon whether they're anchored by Time-Waner or News Corp or Credit Suisse, etc.

Your extrapolations -- which are based upon a renderings on a billboard that you obviously have not even seen in person -- are not based on any written facts.

Zapatan · #**520** Posted: **Oct 16, 2011, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The final parameters of these towers are not set and will depend upon who the primary tenants are in each tower. As I've stated, the configurations of these towers will be vastly different depending upon whether they're anchored by Time-Waner or News Corp or Credit Suisse, etc.

Your extrapolations -- which are based upon a renderings on a billboard that you obviously have not even seen in person -- are not based on any written facts.

What is the diffrerence between seeing it in person and on a computer screen? it's the same freaking image... I don't need written facts... unless the rendering is wrong.