SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 96 of 407
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Submariner Feb 21, 2014 6:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by supertallchaser (Post 6462319)
so is it officially 1550ft ? if so should we change the title and diagram?
I don't believe it is official. The YIMBY article seems to state that it is possible that the height could be 1550 feet - the new permits reduce the floor count to 85 (from 88) which was the floor count of the taller proposal, but they could be working on a different design all together that's closer to the current height.

FMIII Feb 21, 2014 7:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6461957)
I agree there is nothing wrong with bringing up the subject. I don't think the shadows are a big deal but I am also reminded that the best urban spaces are a product of real public discourse. Because unchecked development can make places less desirable and hinder future development. It won't surprise me if some of those zoning controls get changed in the next 10 years or so.
I agree with you on both points. And your second remark is very important. Because, even though we all agree that they are mainly wrong, this is exactly what is at stake right now: a rezoning.

To be conviced of this, you just have to take a look at what happenned after Extell built two tower in the upper west side :

Quote:
The shape of that future became a little clearer this month when Community Board 7 voted unanimously in favor of rezoning 51 blocks between 96th and 110th Streets. The change would limit buildings to a height of 145 feet on Broadway — about 14 stories — and prevent the transfer of air rights from side streets, effectively preventing anything as tall as the Ariel towers from being built again in the neighborhood.
and the answer from Barnett was a bit ambivalent:
Quote:
Perhaps it’s not surprising that Mr. Barnett of Extell calls the new zoning a bad idea — “a classic case of overreaction,” he said — but he appreciates one of its ironies. His towers will now command their height, alone and unchallenged, in perpetuity. “If anything,” Mr. Barnett said, “it just makes our views forever.”
Source : The New York Times June 17, 2007

A picture of both towers :
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/D1...w444-h207-p-no
Jacob Silberberg for The New York Times

So we may think what we want about them, fact is, it's better to find a common ground than to have to face a rezoning. Nonetheless, it seems that for some tenants and some developers a rezoning would be good news, because it would make their views forever.

Submariner Feb 21, 2014 7:27 PM
I'm not sure how zoning laws work in the city, but de Blaiso seems to have the hots for growth (density and vertical growth) so at the very least, there is a strong ally in developers corners.

FMIII Feb 21, 2014 9:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6462457)
I'm not sure how zoning laws work in the city, but de Blaiso seems to have the hots for growth (density and vertical growth) so at the very least, there is a strong ally in developers corners.
I am no expert but I know that each neighborhood has its own regulations and that in certain part of the city, a city council vote is needed to change existing zoning laws. The rezoning of Central Park South would not be as easy as what happened in the Upper West side but still, it is always a possibility.

Even though De Blasio is a strong advocate of vertical growth, we have to keep in mind that it is not skyscrapers fans who elect politicians but people who live there. Hence, even if those "nimbies" are despised on this site (for obvious reasons) it doesn't prevent them to have a tremendous power on the future of the city.

That's why I think Barnett was right to attend this meeting and that all developers concerned by this issue should have participated in the consultation. The best way to move things forward is to explain your point of view and to reduce, through dialogue, your opponent's anxiety (feigned or genuine). If developers would put as much effort to win the public opinion battle as they do to acquire air rights, then sky would be the only limit that they would have to face to achieve their ambition.

NYguy Feb 21, 2014 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6462327)
Most NIMBYism isn't built on rational fear, but rather illogical, hair-trigger sensitive zealotry. I'm willing to bet that before opposition to these towers became well organized (for example, before the shadow studies were conducted) their near-exact line of thinking was "Tall towers are bad" with no other thought besides that.
These towers could be half the heights they are, and the same people would be making the same arguments.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6462425)
this is exactly what is at stake right now: a rezoning.

To be conviced of this, you just have to take a look at what happenned after Extell built two tower in the upper west side :

So we may think what we want about them, fact is, it's better to find a common ground than to have to face a rezoning.
There's no need to be concerned about a rezoning, other than the fact that these groups tend to make a lot of noise. The fact of the matter is that these buildings are being built in the special midtown district that has no height limits - unlike the neighborhoods which you use as an example. And the City is not going to put a cap on midtown heights. What these people would really like is for these towers to go through the approvals process (ULURP) where they can harass developers and request more "community amenities", in other words, where they can "shake down" the developers. It's not going to happen, and it would be pointless for that process to even begin, because by the time any changes like that made it through, these towers would be already built.

This is what the foolish among them doesn't understand: these buildings are being built using up the available air rights around them. So, not only are the "preserving" open views, there is a finite amount that can and will be built around the park.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6462703)
Even though De Blasio is a strong advocate of vertical growth, we have to keep in mind that it is not skyscrapers fans who elect politicians but people who live there. Hence, even if those "nimbies" are despised on this site (for obvious reasons) it doesn't prevent them to have a tremendous power on the future of the city.
What you also have to understand is that it is the minority of the voters who even care about this as an issue. Most New Yorkers have far more important things to be concerned about in daily life - jobs, schools, safety, and those are the issues that decide elections, not how many skyscrapers will cause shadows in Central Park.

De Blasio will allow buildings taller than probably any previous administration, and he will be aggressive about it.


http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2014/...-that-hes.html

DeBlasio makes clear that he's a developers' whore

February 21, 2014

Quote:
Leaving no doubt what he meant, de Blasio said reaching his housing goals would require erecting the biggest buildings possible.

He called it a “willingness to use height and density to the maximum feasible extent. This is something I’ve said in our previous meetings I don’t have a hangup about. I think it’s necessary to do what I’m here to do.”

Note to NIMBYs: De Blasio doesn't care about your height phobias.



Another look at the absurdity of the shadow argument.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981048/original.jpg

Towersteve Feb 21, 2014 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6462757)
These towers could be half the heights they are, and the same people would be making the same arguments.





There's no need to be concerned about a rezoning, other than the fact that these groups tend to make a lot of noise. The fact of the matter is that these buildings are being built in the special midtown district that has no height limits - unlike the neighborhoods which you use as an example. And the City is not going to put a cap on midtown heights. What these people would really like is for these towers to go through the approvals process (ULURP) where they can harass developers and request more "community amenities", in other words, where they can "shake down" the developers. It's not going to happen, and it would be pointless for that process to even begin, because by the time any changes like that made it through, these towers would be already built.

This is what the foolish among them doesn't understand: these buildings are being built using up the available air rights around them. So, not only are the "preserving" open views, there is a finite amount that can and will be built around the park.





What you also have to understand is that it is the minority of the voters who even care about this as an issue. Most New Yorkers have far more important things to be concerned about in daily life - jobs, schools, safety, and those are the issues that decide elections, not how many skyscrapers will cause shadows in Central Park.

De Blasio will allow buildings taller than probably any previous administration, and he will be aggressive about it.


http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2014/...-that-hes.html

DeBlasio makes clear that he's a developers' whore

February 21, 2014




Note to NIMBYs: De Blasio doesn't care about your height phobias.



Another look at the absurdity of the shadow argument.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981048/original.jpg
HA! The shadows in that diagram are likely impossible. The sun would have to be so low that existing buildings a mile away would block direct sun light already.

AtlantaMustang Feb 21, 2014 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towersteve (Post 6462764)
HA! The shadows in that diagram are likely impossible. The sun would have to be so low that existing buildings a mile away would block direct sun light already.
The problem with this diagram is that it isn't rotated the roughly 30 degrees that the Manhattan grid is. If you were to rotate that map to match north south you'd see how late in the day this is. In a matter of minutes the whole park would be completely covered in shadow anyway.

It's being used as a scare tactic. Simple as that.

Hypothalamus Feb 21, 2014 11:48 PM
The story never ends...

http://s11.therealdeal.com/trd/th/images/logo-small.jpg

League of their own: Art Students League members fight transfer to Extell tower
Claim $31.8M for air and cantilever rights for League’s building not nearly enough
By Adam Pincus February 21, 2014 06:17PM

http://s12.therealdeal.com/trd/up/20...er-Barnett.jpg
225 West 57th Street with and without cantilever and Gary Barnett

Quote:
More than 100 members of the Art Students League of New York opposed to the League’s deal to sell air and cantilever rights to Gary Barnett’s Extell Development for his mixed-use tower at 225 West 57th Street, filed suit this week to block the transfer.

The members of the art nonprofit believe the developer of the proposed 1,435-foot tall tower should pay far more than the agreed on fee of $31.8 million, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in New York State Supreme Court. In fact, they suggest the property rights controlled by the league’s landmarked building next door at 215 West 57th Street are worth more than $400 million.

The group of individuals sued the League, the 12 individual members of the Board of Control of the Arts Students League, and Extell, seeking to block the deal.

However, the 111 members form just a small fraction of the 1,569 who belong to the League and who voted Feb. 12 to approve the sale, which is slated to close when the project gets financing or by Dec. 31, whichever comes first, according to materials supplied to members and filed with the court.

A spokesperson for Extell noted the transfer plan passed by a margin of six-to-one in a vote conducted by the League.

“One has to wonder why any person truly concerned with [the League’s] best interests, would jeopardize more than $30 million in much-needed funds and try to sabotage the wishes of the vast majority of its members,” the company said in a statement.

Moshe Mortner, an attorney representing the opposing members, declined to comment. The League did not respond to a request for comment.

Extell agreed to pay the $31.6 million fee to the League for 6,000 square feet of development rights as well as for the right to build the cantilever over a portion of the League’s building on West 57th Street.

This was the second purchase of development rights from the nonprofit. In 2005, Extell bought the bulk of the air rights, some 136,096 square feet, but did not buy the right to build a cantilever.

The cantilever, which is planned to be about 28 feet wide by 88 feet long, will begin nearly 200 feet — or 30 stories — above the base of the League’s four-story building.

The opponents of the transfer accuse the board of withholding material information from its members, as well.
http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...-West-57th.jpg
Rendering of 225 West 57th Street

Zapatan Feb 22, 2014 12:03 AM
Here we go again...

Hopefully the cantilever gets removed because it's pretty silly not gonna lie

FMIII Feb 22, 2014 1:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6462757)
What you also have to understand is that it is the minority of the voters who even care about this as an issue. Most New Yorkers have far more important things to be concerned about in daily life - jobs, schools, safety, and those are the issues that decide elections, not how many skyscrapers will cause shadows in Central Park.
You are right, there was a mistake in my comment. Those people are not numerous enough to swing votes at elections. And yes, most New Yorkers have far more important things to be concerned about.
However, when it comes to lobby, Nimbies are loud enough (and rich enough) to get heard. After all, no one can deny that, from the 1916 zoning resolution to the shortened tower verre, for the better and for the worse, they have, in a way, shaped the city skyline.

Zapatan Feb 22, 2014 2:41 AM
I don't think they have as much say for this building since they are as of right with air rights etc. Hopefully not

King DenCity Feb 22, 2014 7:14 AM
the roller coaster does not stop does it?

gramsjdg Feb 22, 2014 8:25 AM
1435 ft is a little better than 1423...

...still, the current "design/massing" is definitely sub-standard for NYC supertalls- we should expect something better from starchitects. Hopefully a completely new design is in the works, something that is at least the equal of 107 W 57th...

the cantilever looks like one of the guns from the 1986 movie Aliens... geez

FMIII Feb 22, 2014 2:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6463099)
I don't think they have as much say for this building since they are as of right with air rights etc. Hopefully not
You are right, they have no power regarding all the 57th street planned towers. My last comments was just a reflection about possible changes in the future due to the acrimony of some residents. I was just wondering (as it happened in other parts of the city) if once those towers are built, there could be some risks of a rezoning or some kind of approval process put in place to prevent future supertalls from being built around the park. According to NY Guys, given the location, it seems there is no risk at all in the foreseeable future, and that is good news.
However, given the not so welcoming reception this tower has received on this site, it seems that some kind of approval process (reviewed by skysrapers fan only) would not be such a bad idea.

chris08876 Feb 22, 2014 4:39 PM
That article that NYGUY posted in other words tells us her at SSP that for the next four years, the gravy train of towers will continue to roll out. We will be seeing a lot more of the smiley faces on the forum. :cheers:

The city needs to grow, and as long as the insane demand is there, grow like bamboo it shall. (Amen) :tup:

Busy Bee Feb 27, 2014 3:43 AM
SUPER SKYSCRAPERS on PBS
 
PLEAAAAAASSSSEEE tell me those tower models that Gary keeps eyeing and groping during this show(00:36:00) are in fact the real design for this building.......

Fingers crossed.

Blaze23 Feb 27, 2014 4:18 AM
^^ same thing I was thinking

babybackribs2314 Feb 27, 2014 4:25 AM
No-one besides a very small team at Extell (and AS +GG) knows what the final design will be. It is being kept extremely secret, though I doubt it is what was presented at the LPC.

Zapatan Feb 27, 2014 6:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6470617)
PLEAAAAAASSSSEEE tell me those tower models that Gary keeps eyeing and groping during this show(00:36:00) are in fact the real design for this building.......

Fingers crossed.

Is there a link?

vandelay Feb 27, 2014 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6470617)
PLEAAAAAASSSSEEE tell me those tower models that Gary keeps eyeing and groping during this show(00:36:00) are in fact the real design for this building.......

Fingers crossed.
You mean the PBS show on 157?

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365182158/

That's an old model of 157.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:24 PM.
Viewing Page 96 of 407
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.