NEW YORK | Highrise Developments Compilation Thread - Page 2

CoolCzech · #21 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 12:15 AM**

I guess the proof of the pudding will be the Hudson Yards development: really, it's probably NYC's last chance to break city height records for at least a generation. I've love to see someone "stretch the envelope" and put up a full 2,000 footer...

Lecom · #22 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I guess the proof of the pudding will be the Hudson Yards development: really, it's probably NYC's last chance to break city height records for at least a generation. I've love to see someone "stretch the envelope" and put up a full 2,000 footer...

But remember, we don't want a "Hong Kong on the Hudson" now, do we

photoLith · #23 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Well, it WILL have something comparable to the Chicago Spire: the FT, "only" 88 percent the height of the CS! Not to mention, it will have 3 supertall/near-supertall companions, to boot... and a 900 footer practically across the street (99 Church Street). Too bad no other city in the world has anything comparable to THAT...

That is only because of the spire on WTC 1, otherwise its about 640 ft shorter and thats a lot. I dont count spires as height. Its just a way of cheating the system.

aluminum · #24 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 6:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Not to mention, it will have 3 supertall/near-supertall companions, to boot... and a 900 footer practically across the street (99 Church Street). Too bad no other city in the world has anything comparable to THAT...

I love NYC and the new WTC but at the same time I'm not ignorant to rest of the world, your above underlined statement is factually incorrect because you probably haven't heard of mega-projects like Dubai Marina or Shanghai Centre. I'm not saying these projects are economically bigger than NY's new WTC (which I'm pretty sure they aren't) I'm just saying these projects are structurally bigger than the new WTC. And sorry if I went off-topic.

Lecom · #25 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

I love NYC and the new WTC but at the same time I'm not ignorant to rest of the world, your above underlined statement is factually incorrect because you probably haven't heard of mega-projects like Dubai Marina or Shanghai Centre. I'm not saying these projects are economically bigger than NY's new WTC (which I'm pretty sure they aren't) I'm just saying these projects are structurally bigger than the new WTC. And sorry if I went off-topic.

I agree. Though other places aspire to match New York's greatness and urbanity (as the city has been the trendsetter throughout the 20th century), we must admit that sheer size-wise, the city, if not already beat, will be beat by certain clusters around the world. Look at Dubai Marina's "tallest block". Up to a dozen supertalls butting up right against one another. I'm not arguing whether it's a good urban development strategy or not, but that's just the way it is.

photoLith · #26 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 9:37 PM**

edit

Dac150 · #27 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 10:04 PM**

Manhattan will get its share of tall buildings, even after this boom comes to an end. It's not that developers don't want to build the 'Chicago Spires' of the world here, it's just not as a 'walk in the park' as in other world cities. I think we are currently getting a handsome amount of highrise development on all calibers and should be satisfied.

Manhattan doesn't need a 2,000' building to stake a claim for anything or prove anything. There is no doubt in my mind that New York will have a building taller than the FT, if not a few down the road. I'm not worried about it.

StatenIslander237 · #28 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdawg

Tower Verre must be built! It's seriously the most exciting proposal in the city IMO.

YES DITTO!!! When they approve it I'm having a party.

Dac150 · #29 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 10:14 PM**

^^^If it passed NIMBY opposition then I would think it's smooth sailing from here on in, unless I'm missing something. I personally look forward to this building. It's something this city has never seen before in a highrise, and I think it'll be healthy for the skyline to add a little twist (especially in that part of town where you have box after box).

photoLith · #30 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 10:17 PM**

Yes, Tower Verre needs to be built. It is one of the most interesting and different buildings that I have ever seen. It may never become a NYC icon to the masses but in the architectural world it will be an icon.

CoolCzech · #31 Posted: **Aug 6, 2008, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

I agree. Though other places aspire to match New York's greatness and urbanity (as the city has been the trendsetter throughout the 20th century), we must admit that sheer size-wise, the city, if not already beat, will be beat by certain clusters around the world. Look at Dubai Marina's "tallest block". Up to a dozen supertalls butting up right against one another. I'm not arguing whether it's a good urban development strategy or not, but that's just the way it is.

I'll concede that point. There's no doubt that there is no profit in - nor need for - NYC trying to compete deliberately with cities that put up supertalls to "make a statement." I frankly wouldn't want a city or other government to waste tax dollars, for instance, merely to indulge in that. Nor would I think it particularly good urban planning. But when you look at what's coming for lower Manhattan in its entire context - the way the entire lower end of Manhattan island will converge in ever taller towers (when viewed from the Brooklyn side of the East River) and culminate in the Freedom Tower's spire... well, I stand by what I posted: NOTHING anywhere will match that urban ensemble in its entirety.

It shall be, to paraphrase Larry Silverstein, unprecedented, amazing, unbeatable.

Lecom · #32 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I'll concede that point. There's no doubt that there is no profit in - nor need for - NYC trying to compete deliberately with cities that put up supertalls to "make a statement." I frankly wouldn't want a city or other government to waste tax dollars, for instance, merely to indulge in that. Nor would I think it particularly good urban planning. But when you look at what's coming for lower Manhattan in its entire context - the way the entire lower end of Manhattan island will converge in ever taller towers (when viewed from the Brooklyn side of the East River) and culminate in the Freedom Tower's spire... well, I stand by what I posted: NOTHING anywhere will match that urban ensemble in its entirety.

It shall be, to paraphrase Larry Silverstein, unprecedented, amazing, unbeatable.

Agreed. If anything, the up-and-coming metropolises often try to emulate New York, not the other way around. Just like in the 19th century America was bulging with massive development and industrial growth and in haste haphazardly tried to imitate the great cities and landmarks of established European cities, now the trend turned around to former 2nd and 3rd world and current upcoming economic giants trying to emulate and improve (or "improve") upon American developments. For all we know, in the 22nd century some new megacity would aspire to the "dignified" and antique establishment of Dubai.

Lecom · #33 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 2:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

I updated my map to include the 500 or so ft up projects in downtown and midtown. Hope you guys like it and its 100% accurate too of where the buildings are going in. I even tried to make the sizes semi accurate. Also included in the map I drew out where the historic districts are. I updated the image on the first page so people can have a reference to look at.

Heh, not bad. It may be somewhat basic but it's a start - added it to the first post for general reference. It sort of seems haphazard right now though. Maybe instead of having the map color coded (which makes it rather difficult to find certain projects unless you already know where to look, and besides some colors don't stand out as well as others) you should stick to identifying the projects with a circle of a standard distinctive size and color (orange seems to work well), and differentiate the projects using number labeling instead. Give it a shot if you're up for it.

photoLith · #34 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 2:17 AM**

^^^
I am actually making a map for the entire city and it will take me probably 20 hours or more to complete it. I am working on it right now, but how should I label the buildings? Because, numbering then will not work too well because the numbers will be obscured and I know that color coding them will not work too well either because I am going to run out of colors. How then should I label where the buildings are?

Lecom · #35 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

^^^
I am actually making a map for the entire city and it will take me probably 20 hours or more to complete it. I am working on it right now, but how should I label the buildings? Because, numbering then will not work too well because the numbers will be obscured and I know that color coding them will not work too well either because I am going to run out of colors. How then should I label where the buildings are?

I was thinking something along these lines (I marked 3 arbitrary buildings)

Seems like you're making your map in MS Paint, so if that's the case I included a template for the labels that you may wish to use. It's in PNG format so there is no jpeg grain distortion, and the center of the circle is just off-white, which is clear enough to appear white yet doesn't get deleted when you copy/paste the whole object while making all whites transparent.

Also, see if you can include major streets on your map for general reference.

photoLith · #36 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 4:43 AM**

Thanks, thats a great idea. I actually will be making the big map with photoshop and i will include all of the historic districts too. Thanks for the pointer.

Lecom · #37 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 4:57 AM**

No problem. Photoshop is definitely a good idea. You said that you intend to make a map of the entire city, which is quite sprawling compared to the epicenter of major developments (Lower Manhattan to around 100th Street). Perhaps you should consider having a detailed map for the main development district in the same vein as you had your original map, and then have another one for the entire city with the lower half of Manhattan redirecting for the inset. Otherwise I'm afraid you'll either end up with a gigantic single map where most action takes place on just a single parcel, or a smaller NYC map where most of the developments would be cluttered together.

photoLith · #38 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 5:28 AM**

I have already created the map and yes it is huge, I had to stitch about 100 photos together to get the whole island. I know that most the projects are located downtown and uptown but there are a few scattered throughout manhatten island that arent in the boom areas.

pattali · #39 Posted: **Aug 7, 2008, 8:59 AM**

could you include 510 Madison Ave please ?

photoLith · #40 Posted: **Aug 8, 2008, 3:30 AM**

Last time I upload my map. I redid it to make it easier to figure out and made it more professional looking and all that jazz.Took me almost all day to make it, it was pretty tough locating all of the projects, some werent on the front page of this forum, like Goldman Sachs and so on; and then dont even get me started how much of a pain it was to stitch all of the hundreds of photos together to make this one map.

It is small because flickr wouldnt let me have it in its original size. I made it to be about twice this big and thats why the type is small. If this could go on the front page instead of the other one, I would appreciate it. If I missed any towers let me know and also let me know if theres any site that I can download a larger sized image to the forum because flickr made it really small