Except that we haven't had a long economic boom, we haven't had much new construction relative to past economic booms, and your prediction that "you probably won't see this boom again" runs against thousands of years of human history. Economies go up and down and back up again.

And we're talking tall buildings, not economic booms. They aren't that closely related.

You and I both know we don't know that. So no disappointment here. I don't even think this tower needs to be 1,775 ft. I don't get the point of stretching a spire that high just to cut short. Either it's a worthy addition to the design, or it isn't. Personally, I would have been much more pleased with that earlier 1,550 ft design.

Almost always there is an economic boom that proceeds the tallest skyscrapers. The boom of the 1920s gave away to the tallest buildings of the 1930s, the 1960s boom gave way to the tallest buildings of the 1970s, there were almost no tallest buildings in 1983-2008, largely boom times. The closest you're going to get are the 2010s. Although I will say if 9/11 hadn't happened New York City and Chicago probably both would have gotten new tallests during the 2000s, as there were strong proposals put fourth.

I wish they had the original design back, which probably would have topped out at 1,550 feet. The spire here is a little baffling, but its pretty much assures Nordstrom Tower (at least on paper) will be the tallest residential building in the city for the foreseeable future.

Again, we don't know that. Nordstrom itself has yet to be built, so it's a little ridiculous to make those assertions. As it is now planned, yes Nordstrom will be the tallest. Is it possible that a taller residential will be proposed and built? Absolutely. No one is certain that it will happen, just as no one is certain that it won't happen.

I think Garret Kelleher has a better chance making it to the top right now...But your right, you never know. :)

Well, that's your opinion, but itself no guarantee. It's the only current taller proposal in the US at least.

The current cycle has at most one more year, so for the next decade, I doubt anything tops One WTC, though I will try to lobby Barnett to do so! :)

We're not talking immediately, though that's not out of the question. But still...



I've been watching the skyline long enough to know that we just don't know what will happen. We had no reason to suspect this tower would have a spire rise as high as is planned, especially given that the developer specifically said there would be none. But if some developer comes along and wants to build a tower higher than 1,776 ft, and has the ability to do so, its not the architect who will decide what gets built.

So we'll just keep watching the skyline and the developments as they make progress. No need worrying about unknown developments, they'll reveal themselves if and when the time comes.

How does that make sense?

I could understand if this statement referred to more than just one building. In that situation a healthy economy is key. But in this situation we are only concerned with one building.

Furthermore, just one building need be built to top 1WTC. That one building could be Nordstrom Tower or even other proposed or U/C. In fact they need only clear several hundred feet more.

Does this really call for "disappointment" or rather encouragement?


Interesting. What else do you see in your crystal ball? Do you realize that there are 3-4 major constructions in consideration for NY higher than Nordstrom Tower? Do you think we would just build one tower the height of the original WTC and that's it? A better prediction for s future NY(in 5-10 yrs) might include anything in m\Midtown east, Shvo tower(central park), or H3 Hardy. Let's not forget Hudson spire. I should also mention Liberty Rising even though it's in Jersey city.

Guys, let's chill. Only time will tell if WTC1 gets topped. Here is something to lighten the mood!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wfYIMyS_dI

soooo nice! just what I needed.

Agree. :cheers:

is that brittney spears?

He's talking about over saturating the ultra luxury market.

I think it's Enya.


I finally see his point. Please take my former comments with a grain of salt and excuse any misdirection I may have.

Exactly. Now enough with the soothsaying.

This tower, although a box (again :( ) is still the most exciting proposal in NYC IMO. I can't wait to see this behemoth stretching the skyline north. To me it's far more exciting than that concrete box on Park. The modernity of all this glass rising to such heights will surely help the NY skyline look more 21st century and the sun reflecting off this thing will be stunning. So, sorry to Park, vandie, etc, but this tower is the King of the current boom.

The 1,775 foot mark gentlemens agreement is absurd
 

Im sure if some rich Saudi oil prince or some Asian tycoon said i'll pay 150 million 4 the top floor pent house but ONLY if it's the tallest building in NYC they will 4 get about that 1,775 foot limit. Placing limits on a building is honoring nobody. Imagine having no ships longer then the Lusitania? Is that honoring the dead? I don't think so.

I wouldn't worry too much. Of course it's pathetic and totally ridiculous to mark an "official" height limit in the city. I think it's just that 1WTC needs some alone time at the top. Give it a year or so, and nobody, not even the developers, will give a crap about the 1,776ft figure. Also, what's wrong with developing a tower with a 1,700ft + roof height? :P

It's probably a well intentioned idea, but not thought out. For one thing, as I said earlier, if a developer wants to and can build taller, he will. But more importantly, trying to honor the Freedom Tower by not topping that 1,776 ft mark misses the main reason for that building being built. It was not simply to honor the year 1776, but to restore that same spirit that built the original complex. To build high, and higher even. Originally, there were those who thought New York would and should never build tall again. That fear mongering gave way to the "voice" of New Yorkers who demanded something tall be built to restore the skyline. That the city would not bow down to the threat of terrorism, which will always be with us anyway. And that's what we got. Trying to stunt the skyline, while maybe well intentioned, flies in the face of that. You honor the World Trade Center by building with that same spirit. Stopping the spire just a foot short is much too obvious.

Don't worry. With developers showing reverence to the 1776 foot limit in Manhattan, it looks like the next best hope to exceed it will be for the 95-storey Liberty Rising development in Jersey City!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/ny...city.html?_r=0
:D :P :haha:

Building tall costs quite a bit and honestly, I don't see Jersey commanding those prices.