NEW YORK | 53W53 (Tower Verre) | 1,050 FT / 320 M | 73 FLOORS - Page 50

CGII · #**981** Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Amanda was appointed by Bloomberg.

This is an election year for Bloomberg.

He wants to show that his administration is listening to the public so he can get votes.

NIMBYs show up to public meetings. You guys don't.

Government thinks the NIMBYs repesent the general public so they listen to them.

I don't think I will vote for Bloomie anymore.

This plays into the theory I've heard that Bloomberg (a developer himself) doesn't want to look like he's got his hands in the pockets of developers and letting them build big obtrusive buildings.

StarScraperCity · #**982** Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 10:31 PM**

What's the point now? Honestly, I'd rather they build it all, or not at all.

Duffstuff129 · #**983** Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 10:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarScraperCity

What's the point now? Honestly, I'd rather they build it all, or not at all.

I feel the same way.

This thread is making me sick.

NYC4Life · #**984** Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 10:52 PM**

I'm affraid our city will have to turn to Dubai or Shanghai if we ever get our dreams of building tall taken seriously again. For such a "tall" city, the rules and regulations, the approval processes and height restrictions in place are simply absurd. This is the city that took building tall to new heights. Why on Earth is this city turning to building shorter will never make sense.

ethereal_reality · #**985** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 12:29 AM**

My god...this news is so disheartening.

So these people have the power to simply chop
off the top of this most beautiful skyscraper?

I can't even express my disappointment.

Duffstuff129 · #**986** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 12:34 AM**

NyGuy (Or anyone in the know), is there any way to reverse this? Surely they can't just do this?

And this make no sense. You can go through all these hoops to impress a committee, have the committee approve it and then a bunch of fucking bureaucrats just trample all over the democratic process and say "NO!".

Bullshit.

rich_200 · #**987** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 2:35 AM**

This is a lesson for NY forumers that next time you should go out and let people know that you support super tall towers. If you don't speak no one will listen

In the eyes of te city council only developers want this supertalls, if they know there is a lot of average people supporting them they might not see as a political suicide to approve tall skyscrapers.

J_M_Tungsten · #**988** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 2:37 AM**

Sickening, that's all I can say.

sbarn · #**989** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:39 AM**

While I completely disagree with this decision... I believe Hines had two alternative versions of the tower dating back to its announcement. They were seeking to build the 1250' foot tower, but also had designed a shorter (as-of-right) version as well - as evidenced between the two designs below:

NYguy · #**990** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

If that wrinkly nasty dumbshit Amanda whatever the hell her name is thought it was such a horrible thing to build over 1,050 feet, then how did fatman Douglas Durst get approval to build One Bryant Park up to 1,200 feet?

This is the sad irony of it all. Because towers aren't limited in height, the CPC chose this oppurtunity (Hines needed something in return) to impose it's own rules on what "merits" being in the same air space as the spire of the Empire State. That same spire that's now clouded with antennas and broadcasting equipment (no different than mechanical space IMO). But when the monsters of the west side begin to rise - and they will - there will be nothing the CPC can do about the designs of those towers.

So what they have done is taken the one supertall proposal in Midtown that also just happens to have an excellent design, and watered it down so it serves as more background filler to the Empire State, rather than as an equal that could help balance the skyline from the coming imbalance of the west side. When this happens, they will look back on this missed oppurtunity, and will have no one to blame but themselves. They'll be off the scene by then, but they should all be kicked off now for this disgrace.

NYguy · #**991** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn

While I completely disagree with this decision... I believe Hines had two alternative versions of the tower dating back to its announcement. They were seeking to build the 1250' foot tower, but also had designed a shorter (as-of-right) version as well - as evidenced between the two designs below:

The design in that picture is of the same tower. You are correct in that Hines had Nouvel design two versions (quoted on the previous page) but we've never seen Nouvel's alternative. What we have seen is a diagram of Hine's 1,089 ft as of right tower, but that wouldn't provide the wanted floorspace at the lower levels Hines is seeking.

Zapatan · #**992** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 3:58 AM**

Well on the bright side, the top wasn't that great looking anyway, and a 1050 foot building with a flat roof is just as good as a 1250 foot building with a thin spire like top...

NYguy · #**993** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Well on the bright side, the top wasn't that great looking anyway, and a 1050 foot building with a flat roof is just as good as a 1250 foot building with a thin spire like top...

What makes you think the building is going to have a flat roof? Hines was charged with keeping the design pretty much as is - only not to top 1,050 ft.

NYguy · #**994** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tranquility

wow. i've been following this thread for some time now I just wish that amanda bitch would DIE IN A FIRE

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

breathesgelatin · #**995** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:17 AM**

Guys, could you cut out the misogyny re: Amanda Burden, please? I'm not happy with the results of the hearing, either, but I'm really freaked out by what some of you are saying.

NYguy · #**996** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea she should die in a fire, or jump off a 1,250 foot building, that dumb c*nt

You guys are classy. But that's enough of that.

Zapatan · #**997** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:26 AM**

Well sorry, I just can't express my anger towards those people... but the most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is that 1050 is still too tall for them, and obviously they have all the power, so the building will probably end up shorter, no?

NYguy · #**998** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Well sorry, I just can't express my anger towards those people... but the most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is that 1050 is still too tall for them, and obviously they have all the power, so the building will probably end up shorter, no?

The building could just as easily end up taller as shorter. So just sit back and wait until the new design comes out.

Zapatan · #**999** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 6:03 AM**

@NYguy,

I hope you're right, it's just that we've already seen that these people are not reasonable so...

The sensible thing to do would be to work out a compromise, say 1150 feet with a slightly bulkier building, how would it end up taller as you say? these people have already expressed even 1000 feet is too tall and they have the say? I hope this ends well but I just don't see it doing that until I see information that says otherwise.

Plus there's no money to build it now, hopefully it will be put on hold till the economia gets better... let's hope

NYguy · #**1000** Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 6:04 AM**

^ No reason to put it on hold. If there's no financing, it won't be built now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3808

The other zoning waivers the developer sought—allowing for the building’s distinctive shape and the transfer of air rights from the University Club and St. Thomas Church down the street—are still in place, with the potential for the building to remain at 650,000 square feet, though the reduced height and parameters of the zoning envelope make that unlikely. Any new designs by Nouvel must return to the commission for approval.

The reason Hines needs the approval is not to build tall, but it needs those waivers for the space this tower and the museum needs at the lower levels. These graphics show the proposed version (right) compared to either of two versions that could be built without any further approvals...