Spires make the skyline awesome. There should be some. I think as long as they do some trippy looking lighting there can be a balance. Just look at this pic. The Bank of America, ESB, Crystler, and Times tower look boss. Add sort of a balance of where appropriate. I guess it depends on the angle. The 57th street towers and this will be taller then BOA towers spire by 100+ feet. A perspective of height.

http://img.wallpapergang.com/167proc...wallpapers.jpg
http://img.wallpapergang.com/167proc...wallpapers.jpg

No, we're not going to do that here.

I was merely point out a fact - New York's tallest have traditionally not been flat roofed buildings, as the crowning glory over a sea of boxes shouldn't be.

No rest for Smith...


http://newssun.suntimes.com/lifestyl...en-cities.html

And the buildings in China will probably be sexy and stunning. I don't blame AS though, because outside of Hines and perhaps a few others, NY developers are greedy, profit driven philistines. Of course in a way, they have to be because of the ridiculous high land and construction costs in this city. Compound that with extremely tight and conservative zoning laws and you got a recipe for the state of development we've got in this city. Sexy and stunning costs more than boxy and simple. A developer is going to choose to limit costs in favor of higher profits.

Well, I don't understand why the comparison between the China's taller tower and the Sears (Willis) Tower. In China they are building for a long time the tallest towers than Sears tower, and not only now.
So, about the supertall building in New York,I hope that Adrian makes a better project than what we saw a few days ago.

Smith was doing an interview with a Chicago-area media company, so he offered the Willis building as a reference point for the readers.

Actually, those Chinese towers are far cheaper than the ones in NYC. It costs much less to build "towers in the park" type designs, and obviously labor costs are many times lower.

And those "sexy and stunning" towers would be horrible if they were built in NYC. I don't want suburban buildings in the middle of Manhattan, with lawns and parking garage bases.

Duh. I think everyone knows that it's much cheaper to build in China. It's much cheaper to build even in this country just outside of Manhattan and the immediate surrounding areas. That's why they (China for example) can "splurge" on the shapes of their towers if they really want to make a statement. And it'll still come out costing less per sf than a simple box in NY.

And we're really talking about the towers themselves, not the open spaces surrounding them (although with lots of space and a blank slate to work with, NY will tend to do that as well as witnessed by the Hudson Yards with lots of open leafy spaces bet. each tower). We wish we can have something like the Ping An or the SWFC for instance.

No, my point is that the China designs are cheaper. They're aren't "splurging"; it's much cheaper to build towers in the park. Usually, the materials are much cheaper too. Then, of course, the obvious labor cost differences.
Your distinctions don't make sense. The design of the towers is specifically dictated by the site. If you have a tower surrounded by lawns, it's automatically cheaper to build then if hemmed in by buildings on all sides. If you build 20 floors of parking, it's automatically cheaper than if you're building actual floorspace.

And I'm not aware of a single building in Hudson Yards with such a suburban-style design.

I would definitely not want Ping An or SWFC in Manhattan. If the design could be modified to fit the Manhattan grid and streetscape, then yes. But not as built.

Well, New York skyscrapers tend to be unique to the specific street grid and the limitations expressed by it. But that's also what makes New York, New York, different from just about everywhere else. Let the buildings in New York reflect New York, and everything else reflect where they are being built.

That being said, it doesn't mean skyscrapers in New York can't have nice designs. We are seeing some nice designs that quite frankly won't fit anywhere else.

This Nordstrom tower, as far as we have seen, is somewhere in between. Only when we get the full renderings can we say for certain which direction it goes.

And it would be even cheaper to build a simple box in the park. Shapes are a big cost factor. Shape is one of the heirarchical factor that then affects labor and material costs. Are you even understanding my point? I don't really like reapeating myself for the third time to dense people who just want to post and sound authoritative. For a time, I really thought you were one of the few intelligent NY posters on this site, but obviously I was mistaken.


Again, for the second time, WE ARE TALKING ONLY ABOUT THE TOWERS THEMSELVES, THE BASE CAN BE DESIGNED TO FIT IN WITH THE MANHATTAN GRID.

I see what you're saying, but then don't get the point.

Obviously we can take the pointy top of a Chinese building and integrate it into a normal Manhattan building. If you prefer flashy, aggressive designs, I can see how you prefer those Chinese crowns.

But obviously the building consists of the entire structure, and the most important part of the structure, by far, is the part that is integrated into the urban environment. I could give a flip about a building's crown if there's a lawn or parking garage at the base. You can't even see the design of the top from the street.

As per this doc filed with the DOB today, Extell tower is 1,550 feet. :)

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

So, why did they announce it as 1423 feet?

Perhaps we are getting some sort of spire/crown after all?

Probably outdated info. Gordon Gill himself mentioned the precise number at the meeting, which is 1423'10''.

That's not the new building permit, which will reveal new height info when submitted. The changes won't be reflected in the other permits until that is updated.

That particular permit is for excavation, the new building permit number listed below.

Word on the street (SSC) is that official renders will be released soon...let's hope soon means "weeks", not "months"

I'm just not as excited anymore.

Well the NY Daily News released a rendering of the base of tower 10 days ago!

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...er2n-3-web.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...er2n-3-web.jpg