SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Buildings & Architecture (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=397)
-   -   NEW YORK | 50 Hudson Yards (504 W. 34th) | 1,011 FT | 79 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208111)

NYguy Oct 17, 2013 7:52 PM

NEW YORK | 50 Hudson Yards (504 W. 34th) | 1,011 FT | 79 FLOORS
 
ADDING RENDERING



http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...Z4WFIX.r1b.JPG



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/gallery/

https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...ing-011019.jpg




https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...lleryHero2.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...yView_1920.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...Home-Hero1.png



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con..._Hero-Dusk.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...nal_180424.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...ion_180912.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...l_180921-1.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...ure_View_2.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con..._VIEW-05_A.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...h-East_R02.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...h-West-R02.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con..._comp_v001.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...Final_5000.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...nal_180817.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...2/Service2.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...nal_180817.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...nal_190104.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...5Lobby_FP2.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con...ight.tmrw_.jpg



https://www.50hudsonyards.com/wp-con..._VIEW-03_A.jpg








______________________________________________________________




The final of the so called "four corners" towers, and the largest of the planned Hudson yards towers along the new Hudson Boulevard. Part of the site is currently a McDonald's.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...orm-in-january

By David M. Levitt
October 17, 2013


Quote:

On the opposite side of Hudson Boulevard, Related plans to build a 62-story skyscraper on the site of Coach’s current headquarters at 504-522 West 34th St. The company needs to acquire adjacent parcels before starting that building.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...n-january.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iMws7OcqGpC0.jpg

NYguy Oct 17, 2013 8:15 PM

This will also be "2 Hudson Boulevard".


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930064/original.jpg




Some images of the sites from Google Earth...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930065/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930066/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930067/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930068/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930069/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930099/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930100/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930101/original.jpg

Perklol Oct 17, 2013 8:26 PM

Are those two 12 story buildings at the corners of 34th street owned/leased from coach? I read somewhere that they lease space in several smaller office buildings around 34th street.

NYguy Oct 17, 2013 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6306368)
Are those two 12 story buildings at the corners of 34th street owned/leased from coach? I read somewhere that they lease space in several smaller office buildings around 34th street.

I'm not sure which buildings you mean, but could be. The building above is a headquarters.


http://www.streetinsider.com/Corpora...s/8244244.html

Quote:

On April 10, 2013, 504-514 West 34th Street Corp. and 516 West 34th Street LLC, both subsidiaries of the Company, entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell the Company’s existing global corporate headquarters to ERY 34th Street Acquisition LLC.

Pursuant to this agreement, the Purchaser will pay approximately $130,000,000 to the Sellers, subject to apportionments, adjustments and credits as provided for in the agreement, for the parcels of land and the buildings located at 504-522 West 34th Street, New York, New York.

The Purchase and Sale Agreement is subject to, among other things, the Fund Member and the Developer performing their obligations pursuant to the Development Agreement and the LLC Agreement. The Purchase and Sale Agreement is expected to close 45 days after the Company vacates its existing headquarters, subject to customary adjournments.


Coach's earlier purchase of its headquarters...

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Coach...rters_Building

Quote:

On November 26, 2008, Coach purchased its corporate headquarters building at 516 West 34th Street in New York City for $126,300. As part of the purchase agreement, Coach paid $103,300 of cash and assumed $23,000 of the outstanding mortgage held by the sellers. The mortgage bears interest at 4.68% per annum and interest payments are made monthly. Principal payments begin in July 2009 with the final payment of $21,555 due in June 2013.

NYguy Oct 17, 2013 10:41 PM

Looks like the tower will be situated on the eastern side of the site, providing better views for both itself and the North Tower (Time Warner).



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152932560/original.jpg

babybackribs2314 Oct 17, 2013 11:13 PM

With the addition of One & Two Hudson Boulevard, the entire site now has a similar configuration to the World Trade Center. The potential is definitely there for a 'spiral' of continuity between the office towers. Would not be surprised if KPF was pegged for both of these new towers, as they should compliment the HY North & South Buildings.

NYguy Oct 18, 2013 12:02 AM

Yes, they are moving forward with development plans here sooner than I would have expected with everything that currently has to be built over the railyards. But it makes more sense to move forward with plans for these sites because the subway station will be at the center of it all. Also, Related wants a "critical mass" of development, so the west side in general becomes more attractive. It's similar to what's taking shape with the WTC. The more you have open for business, the better it is for everyone.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152934178/original.jpg

ILNY Oct 18, 2013 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6306343)
This will also be "2 Hudson Boulevard".


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930065/original.jpg

I will miss that McDonalds, hopefully they will just relocate it.

Busy Bee Oct 18, 2013 1:19 AM

Isn't that the Mickey D's from Supersize Me?

chris08876 Oct 18, 2013 1:23 AM

This is similar to the ESB when it comes to SqFt and lot size. ESB slightly bigger but I would imagine this could be a similar height and bulk.

NYguy Oct 18, 2013 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6306703)
I will miss that McDonalds, hopefully they will just relocate it.

Finding a McDonalds isn't hard to do.

babybackribs2314 Oct 18, 2013 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6307702)
Finding a McDonalds isn't hard to do.

But this is the best McDonalds. Plus, there are no other drive-throughs...

NYguy Oct 18, 2013 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6307733)
But this is the best McDonalds. Plus, there are no other drive-throughs...

Bleh, they're all the same. I've eaten from there a couple of times. As far as drive-throughs go, Manhattan isn't the place for them. Nor should it be. After all, we're not getting a subway extension built over there to service a McDonalds drive through.

chris08876 Oct 18, 2013 8:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6307733)
But this is the best McDonalds. Plus, there are no other drive-throughs...

Come to NJ. We have too many over here. :cheers:

easy as pie Oct 18, 2013 11:43 PM

with the crazy good deal that they scored with the yards, the timeframe for the platform over the yards, the carrying costs they're likely looking at for this site (not including the coach building, which will be a money maker for years with all the towers going up around it), and the competition in the area (at least 2 non-related office towers along hudson + the 3 manhattan west towers), it makes a lot of sense to push this site before the north tower on the yards site. which is something i'd quite like, since the volume of office space built out in the far west side could well delay the demolition of some midtown east beauties by possibly a decade or more, along with potentially getting the 7 looped down to penn station.

antinimby Oct 19, 2013 1:24 AM

I find it hard to believe (well this is skyscraperpage so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised) that people here are worried about the loss of a freaking McDonald's drive thru (really?) and not a single mention of the loss of Coach's marvelous building.

Incredible.

vkristof Oct 19, 2013 1:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6308144)
I find it hard to believe (well this is skyscraperpage so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised) that people here are worried about the loss of a freaking McDonald's drive thru (really?) and not a single mention of the loss of Coach's marvelous building.

Incredible.

I miss that McDs already and I've never eaten at it & can't recall the last McDs I've eaten at.

I mourn the century old multi-story horse stables on 36th? 37th? (between 11th and the Amtrak cut) that will probably be gone in a few years also.

But all the construction and infrastructure are neat and help to drive the local economy.

The world moves on.



Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie (Post 6308056)
with the crazy good deal that they scored with the yards, the timeframe for the platform over the yards, the carrying costs they're likely looking at for this site (not including the coach building, which will be a money maker for years with all the towers going up around it), and the competition in the area (at least 2 non-related office towers along hudson + the 3 manhattan west towers), it makes a lot of sense to push this site before the north tower on the yards site. which is something i'd quite like, since the volume of office space built out in the far west side could well delay the demolition of some midtown east beauties by possibly a decade or more, along with potentially getting the 7 looped down to penn station.

The 7 extension's tail tracks run down 11th into the 20s. I'd say building a station down along the tail tracks or further south would be more useful by bring service to a rapidly developed/developing area.

Why looping to Penn?

easy as pie Oct 19, 2013 2:04 AM

^ ?? because it's the midtown station for every line not coming from the north, and that extension of the 7 would feed commuters straight there.

NYguy Oct 19, 2013 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie (Post 6308056)
it makes a lot of sense to push this site before the north tower on the yards site.

They're not pushing this before the north tower. For one thing, Coach is still in the building, and they won't get out before they can move into their new headquarters. But Related has one other large railyards tower, on the western half of the development that will come in the second phase. It makes sense to get this one moving sooner because of the transit oriented location (although all will be served by the 7 line.)



Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6308144)
I find it hard to believe (well this is skyscraperpage so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised) that people here are worried about the loss of a freaking McDonald's drive thru (really?) and not a single mention of the loss of Coach's marvelous building. Incredible.

It's insane, I tell ya.

Not that the Coach building is great either (look at that blank wall below), but it is far more appropriate for Manhattan than a drive through. If I had to choose between the two, it's a no brainer. But just imagine this McDonald's in all it's glory still standing as the north tower opens just behind and above it...Yeah, not pretty at all.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930066/original.jpg

Submariner Oct 19, 2013 10:39 PM

Once Penn station gets it's desperately needed rebuild, this neighborhood is going to be truly spectacular.

scalziand Oct 20, 2013 3:07 AM

I would frankly prefer to see the current Coach building stay too. This site has the luxury of being so big that even if the Coach building stays, the new tower would still have a 40,000 sqft footprint, quite big enough for a modern tower. And that tower would still be be on the eastern part of the site, as we've already seen indicated in preliminary plans.

Since the eastern facade would be covered up by the tower, that just leaves the western facade facing the boulevard to be prettied up somehow.

chris08876 Oct 20, 2013 3:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6308826)
Once Penn station gets it's desperately needed rebuild, this neighborhood is going to be truly spectacular.

Yes definitely needs too. But at the same time it has a strikingly urban feel too it. Its as crowded as the streets around it.

599GTO Oct 20, 2013 4:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6307733)
But this is the best McDonalds. Plus, there are no other drive-throughs...

Ugh. I would be so happy if that McDonalds were to be demolished tommorow. I would rather look at a nicely boxed in empty site than look at that eyesore ever again. McDonalds is garbage and drive throughs do not belong in Manhattan.

This is such great news. The transformation is this currently dumpy part of the city to a showstopper of a business district is nothing short of miraculous.

NYguy Oct 21, 2013 5:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 6308991)
I would frankly prefer to see the current Coach building stay too. This site has the luxury of being so big that even if the Coach building stays, the new tower would still have a 40,000 sqft footprint, quite big enough for a modern tower.

It would be out of place, and its not as if companies looking to move to the west side will be looking to move into old office space. Sure they could build a new tower, but they need to assemble the entire site to build as much space as they are allowed. This area was specifically rezoned to accommodate larger office buildings, not just new towers. All of the investments being put into this area (new subway, streets, boulevard, etc.) aren't being made to keep the questionable buildings that are already there in place. It would be besides the point.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152930064/original.jpg

NYguy Oct 22, 2013 3:37 AM

Related plans to have this completed by 2019, a year after the north tower's completion.


http://www.bisnow.com/commercial-rea...opment-chiefs/

http://web01.bisnow.com/testzz/colum...7205_Cross.JPG


October 21, 2013


Quote:

Related is scrapping Extell's 56-story design for One Hudson Yards (Related acquired the site in a land swap with Extell this summer) and is instead designing a 47-story, 1.3M SF office tower to be called 1 Hudson Blvd.....It'll be Hudson Yards' smaller-floorplate option for office tenants (Related is thinking law firms), as opposed to the 2.4M SF north tower's 70k SF lower-level floors. Jay says those were designed for financial services trading floors, and though that sector no longer is a likely tenant, the larger floors are still popular.

Jay's ambitious timing: If the 7 line and south tower (the one with Coach, L'Oreal, and SAP, plus 250k SF available) deliver in 2015, 1 Hudson Blvd would arrive in 2017 and then the north tower in '18. 2 Hudson Blvd, with trading-floor size floorplates again and seven levels of retail (compared to four at Related's successful Time Warner Center), will arrive by the middle of 2019.


Hypothalamus Dec 5, 2013 8:16 PM

New York YIMBY:

Revealed: Hudson Yards
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON DECEMBER 5TH 2013 AT 1:30 PM

Quote:

.......
55 Hudson Yards will be joined by 50 Hudson Yards, aka ‘The McDonalds Drive-Thru Tower,’ which is another major addition to Related’s assemblage. That building will crack the 1,000 foot mark, and appears slightly shorter than the Hudson Yards North Tower.
.......

The scope of Related’s plan is even more impressive than before, and the two new towers will be roughly the same size as the office giants of the original proposal. Though no timeframe has been unveiled for completion, work on 50 and 55 Hudson Yards will probably be finished in the 2020s.
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...6267705751.jpg
50 HY at left, 55 HY at right

NYguy Dec 5, 2013 9:07 PM

I think the design for this one is a placeholder at best. It's further down the line. As you can see, it will be a massive building.


If the footprint is made smaller, as show here, that would only push the height up. But either way, we're talking about a new WTC.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152932560/original.jpg

hunser Dec 5, 2013 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6364714)
I think the design for this one is a placeholder at best. It's further down the line. As you can see, it will be a massive building.


If the footprint is made smaller, as show here, that would only push the height up. But either way, we're talking about a new WTC.

This whole Hudson Yards development will be WTC x 2. And don't get me started on Midtown West or the Midtown East Rezoning. The New York skyline as we know it will change rapidly in the coming years. :yes:

And btw this tower needs to be taller than the North Tower. It has so much potential.

JayPro Dec 5, 2013 11:55 PM

As I've never seen this idea extrapolated to *any* building that has setbacks, how about this?

What if the architect took the vertical aspect of the stepback and somehow converted it to a multi-angular bay/bow window type of thing? Or take said vertical aspect and give it one angular bend, creating a semi-hexagonal kind of thing? To wit:

|
|
>
|
|
=>
|
|
==> and so on.....Do you follow me?

I think that if they do that, slim it up by at least 25%, lose the zig-zags and keep the facade as is with the railing-type additions, we've got a winner.

Duck From NY Dec 6, 2013 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubeworm (Post 6364600)
New York YIMBY:

Revealed: Hudson Yards
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON DECEMBER 5TH 2013 AT 1:30 PM



http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...6267705751.jpg
50 HY at left, 55 HY at right

If left as is, this is the only supertall I wouldn't be able to see from Staten Island.

NYguy Dec 6, 2013 1:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck From NY (Post 6364996)
If left as is, this is the only supertall I wouldn't be able to see from Staten Island.


Consider the one hundred changes they've already made to the towers that are nearing construction, that placeholder won't be close to the finished product.

If Sherwood gets around to developing its site just to the north, this area will be more dense than the WTC.

NYguy Dec 6, 2013 2:04 PM

Another look at the monster model...



edensutley

http://distilleryimage9.s3.amazonaws...2048cdbc_8.jpg

JayPro Dec 6, 2013 3:10 PM

Flip it 180º to make the setbacked side parallel to North Tower's ob deck platform.

scalziand Dec 6, 2013 9:53 PM

Wow, that tower is absolutely a beast.

Anyone still complaining about the loss of the drive through can go to the one on 125th street.

King DenCity Dec 6, 2013 10:03 PM

I think the North Tower losing 80 feet is a fair exchange for 2 extra supertalls. 1 of them likely over 1100'. :)

NYguy Dec 6, 2013 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6365599)
Flip it 180º to make the setbacked side parallel to North Tower's ob deck platform.


I think it will be oriented more to the east to protect views from both towers. But I've changed my mind on the footprint. I think it should cover the entire site and pull up to Hudson Boulevard, in keeping with the more dense Manhattan pattern.


http://distilleryimage3.s3.amazonaws...a4bedf57_8.jpg
Field Condition



The massiveness of this tower dictates it should be taller than 30 HY. That would allow for a better looking tower, and it wouldn't look out of place being taller because of the Sherwood site directly north, which could be something similar to this:


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/82041697/original.jpg



Another look, taken from....

https://www.facebook.com/HudsonYardsNewYork


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153668265/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153668276/original.jpg

DCReid Dec 7, 2013 1:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6365554)

The new proposal does not make much sense. Why would they position the outdoor terrace to be obscured by another fairly close building? And a building that is way to bulky, in my view.

scalziand Dec 7, 2013 9:18 AM

It is very bulky, yes. It looks to me that this tower is supposed to be at roughly the same height as the obs deck in the North tower, maybe they goofed slightly on the height when making the model, and it's supposed to be slightly shorter rather than slightly higher, because you're right, it would make no sense to make it just barely tall enough to block the views to the north for the obs deck.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Dec 7, 2013 10:50 AM

Guys its a place holder...and why not build an observation deck with an 1100-1300 foot tower next door? you still have the east,west and south. We can build this neighborhood around the height of an observation deck. If push comes to shove maybe 50 HY can have it instead. The deck shouldn't place any height limit on the area.

Crawford Dec 7, 2013 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 6366155)
Wow, that tower is absolutely a beast.

Anyone still complaining about the loss of the drive through can go to the one on 125th street.

That one is closing too. ;)

Columbia owns it and is building a new research building on the site.

tyleraf Dec 7, 2013 9:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6366708)
Guys its a place holder...and why not build an observation deck with an 1100-1300 foot tower next door? you still have the east,west and south. We can build this neighborhood around the height of an observation deck. If push comes to shove maybe 50 HY can have it instead. The deck shouldn't place any height limit on the area.

I think he's referring to the new lower terrace that is directly next to 50 hudson yards.

NYguy Dec 8, 2013 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid (Post 6366402)
The new proposal does not make much sense. Why would they position the outdoor terrace to be obscured by another fairly close building? And a building that is way to bulky, in my view.


The planning for this tower was put in place before the railyard plans came to be. It's always been planned to be the largest of the Hudson Yards towers along the boulevard, and could have been larger had City Planning gotten its way with unlimited FARs (the City Council put limits in the plan because they wanted some sort of control over what developers could build). Even before Related got involved with the railyards.


Unlimited FAR planning for the "four corners"

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153683819/original.jpg


Max FAR given by the City Council


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153683821/original.jpg



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/ny...ocks.html?_r=0
The Sky Is No Longer the Limit on Far West Side Buildings

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
January 13, 2005

Quote:

"No limit."

These were perhaps the most striking words in the rezoning plan for the Far West Side of Manhattan, also known as Hudson Yards. They referred to the density limit that the City Planning Commission, until this week, intended to place on the commercial development of two blocks at the heart of Hudson Yards. None.

Developers would have been free to build towers on these blocks as large as they could. There would have been no specified maximum under the density control called the floor-area ratio, or F.A.R., which has regulated building sizes throughout the city since 1961.

Visions of office towers soaring 80 stories and higher were conjured by Community Board 4 last year in its critique of the plan, which described the overall density as "unprecedented, undesirable and ultimately unnecessary for the city's future."

When Melinda Katz, the chairwoman of the City Council's Land Use Committee, learned of the no-limit provision at a hearing last month, she told planning officials, "I'm sure we'll be getting back to you on that."

In a telephone interview yesterday, Ms. Katz, a Queens Democrat, explained: "No. 1, I was concerned with precedent. No. 2, we were uncomfortable as a council with passing something that basically took the authority for creating a limit away from us."

To the administration's credit, she said, a floor-area ratio of 33 was quickly imposed on the two blocks after objections to the no-limit proposal were raised. That was one of several compromises made in the Hudson Yards plan before the committee approved it on Monday, 15 to 0, with 1 abstention. It goes to the full Council for a vote next Wednesday.

The blocks in question are bounded by 10th and 11th Avenues and 33rd and 35th Streets. They are known as the Four Corners because they would be bisected by a new north-south midblock boulevard, which would effectively create four large building sites. The southwest site would be directly over the new terminus of a planned extension of the No. 7 subway line.

"You have to have density to get vibrancy," said Amanda M. Burden, chairwoman of the Planning Commission and director of the City Planning Department. "We believe that deeply, deeply, deeply."

That was a quick recap.

So we've known for a long time (along with Related) that this site would contain a very large tower. I guess its the first time visualizing it that leads to questions, but the deck is situated to over look Manhattan. It could have something to do with the engineering of it as well, but I don't know. Consider that if Manhattan West rose to 1,200 ft just to the east, it would be a similar situation. The tower could potentiall be designed so as not to interfere with views, but I think Related is more interested in protecting office views from both towers.



Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 6366698)
It is very bulky, yes. It looks to me that this tower is supposed to be at roughly the same height as the obs deck in the North tower,


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6366708)
Guys its a place holder...


Yeah, it's just a place holder. But now many are seeing what we've known - it will be a very large tower. Now just add the Girasole (3 HB) and Sherwood's tower to the model, and it will really drive home just how dense this area will be.



edensutley

http://distilleryimage9.s3.amazonaws...2048cdbc_8.jpg




http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153668276/original.jpg

King DenCity Dec 8, 2013 1:54 AM

^This just reminded everyone in the world why they deep down, love new york city. ;)

chris08876 Dec 8, 2013 1:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King DenCity (Post 6367274)
^This just reminded everyone in the world why they deep down, love new york city. ;)

It is amazing these crazy times in terms of development. Not just in NYC, but it seems the sleeping dragon in the U.S. is awaking. Miami, Seattle, Honolulu, San Francisco, and all Texan major cities seem to just be cranking out proposals and plenty of Approvals and UC as well. I like the competition to NYC. I kinda want other U.S. cities to eclipse it in a way (Skyscraper design wise/tallest, ect.) :)

Blaze23 Dec 8, 2013 3:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6367277)
I kinda want other U.S. cities to eclipse it in a way (Skyscraper design wise/tallest, ect.) :)

Now that's wishful thinking. Sure there is a rise in activity countrywide but nowhere is it close to NYC, but here's to hoping.
About this tower, I'm really intrigued how it turns out, will they go for a similar massing in order to maintain 30HY status as the tallest of the bunch or will they make it taller, hence making it the marquee tower? I'm rooting for the latter; guess time will tell.

King DenCity Dec 8, 2013 4:34 AM

^ I would like that!

H-man Dec 8, 2013 8:48 AM

which of those corners is the Girasole?

King DenCity Dec 8, 2013 12:55 PM

^It isn't part of this master plan.

NYguy Dec 8, 2013 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-man (Post 6367474)
which of those corners is the Girasole?


This is the southeast corner, Girasole is the northwest corner...


Here's a rough guide to what goes where. Ignore the Extell design for 55 HY, I left it in for reference.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153690342/original.jpg

Tectonic Dec 8, 2013 2:57 PM

Good reference.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.