SkyscraperPage Forum

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)

chris08876 Dec 4, 2014 6:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830650)
That's a pretty odd way of defining "efficiency". If a billionaire wanted a solid gold toilet I'm sure someone would build one, but that wouldn't make it an efficient toilet. Efficiency means using resources to their maximum potential. These building are the exact opposite of that. They are extremely wasteful of resources and that is a fact whether or not someone can afford it or not. If you want to see tall buildings get built, that's great, but don't lie to yourself and pretend like they are anything other than giant phallic symbols for the ultra-wealthy.

Browntown just stop embarrassing yourself. Everyone is laughing at your asinine train of thought and lack of understanding when it comes to economics and the correlation to tall towers. Looking at your post history, you must be a very angry person. Always negative and complaining. You're basing your comments on emotion, and not facts.

RobEss Dec 4, 2014 9:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6830659)
Browntown just stop embarrassing yourself. Everyone is laughing at your asinine train of thought and lack of understanding when it comes to economics and the correlation to tall towers. Looking at your post history, you must be a very angry person. Always negative and complaining. You're basing your comments on emotion, and not facts.

Easy now.

Crawford Dec 4, 2014 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830650)
It has EVERYTHING to do with show. The demand is driven by people who want a 1000ft high view so they can show off how rich they are!

No, it has nothing to do with show, as you then confirm in the same statement. The demand is strictly driven by consumers, not by any non-market factors. In anything, non-market actors (civics, govt. entities, zoning code, local tax structure) are very anti-development.

The buyers, BTW, are 90% LLCs. Almost no one is trying to "show off how rich they are". The snobbiest residences in NYC aren't these new towers; they're the super-elite prewar coops mostly along Park and Fifth.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830650)
That's a pretty odd way of defining "efficiency". If a billionaire wanted a solid gold toilet I'm sure someone would build one, but that wouldn't make it an efficient toilet.

Uh, I think you need to consult a dictionary. You listed a perfect illustration of efficiency. If the raw market demand were for solid gold toilets, then the most efficient toilet would be solid gold.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830650)
These building are the exact opposite of that. They are extremely wasteful of resources and that is a fact whether or not someone can afford it or not.

Again, totally wrong. They are about the most efficient use of resources possible for superluxury residences. There is basically no other place on the planet where the rich live in skyscraper towers integrated into the urban landscape. There's almost no parking, tiny consumption of land, massive redistributive tax benefits, and the towers are seamlessly inserted into the existing urban form.

Almost everywhere else they're either in giant suburban spreads, or in stand-alone, anti-urban, big city towers.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830650)
If you want to see tall buildings get built, that's great, but don't lie to yourself and pretend like they are anything other than giant phallic symbols for the ultra-wealthy.

Someone is envious. Are you envious of wealthy people, or are you envious of cities with market demand for luxury residential in tall buildings? Where does "Browntown" live where the wealthy apparently live in trailer parks or communes, trying to avoid any pretenses of prosperity?

Like any residential structure, the towers are residences and investment vehicles. If they didn't live or invest in these towers, they would live or invest somewhere else. It's pretty absurd to argue that the rich would live "more efficiently" if they were paying much lower taxes on a 100 acre spread in Greenwich, or if they offshored the wealth to a corrupt tax haven.

hunser Dec 4, 2014 1:47 PM

Nice renderings by Xoltage:

http://i.imgur.com/CE9IGTP.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rF41gW5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/emmPNPs.jpg

JayPro Dec 4, 2014 4:04 PM

HY looks just a bit understated in the last pic, i.e. Girasole and Larry's Tower seem absent.
Otherwise, these are the best future renderings I've seen so far. I hope he does some Queens/LI perspectives soon.

NYdude Dec 4, 2014 6:19 PM

Those two future renders are simply breathtaking. It gives me goosebumps. Truly amazing. I love my city

chris08876 Dec 4, 2014 6:25 PM

That last one.... o man. Amazing. 2023 can't come fast enough! :haha:

This city just keeps getting better. I always wonder how it could continue to become ever more epic than it already is, and it always does. :cheers:

antinimby Dec 4, 2014 7:07 PM

Is there a thread for 498 West End Ave? Where did that come from?

Perklol Dec 4, 2014 7:13 PM

It's a fantasy I think. The usual uninformed person living in China that made those renders.

The apartments were renovated recently...

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/1...rt_at_313m.php

Crawford Dec 4, 2014 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6831286)
Is there a thread for 498 West End Ave? Where did that come from?

I assume he meant to write 498 11th Ave. (11th Ave. and West End Ave. are essentially the same thing).

498 11th is a development assemblage in Hudson Yards.

BrownTown Dec 4, 2014 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6830659)
Browntown just stop embarrassing yourself. Everyone is laughing at your asinine train of thought and lack of understanding when it comes to economics and the correlation to tall towers. Looking at your post history, you must be a very angry person. Always negative and complaining. You're basing your comments on emotion, and not facts.

No, I'm quite sure it's everyone here who thinks these super-skinny ultra-luxury buildings make economic sense that are basing their opinions on emotion. We all want to see them get built, but at least I can admit they don't make sense. Sure, someone will probably buy all the units out, but there have also been people who bought tulip bulbs for thousands of dollars each, people who spent billions of tech stocks that aren't worth the paper they are printed on now, people who bought gold at absurd prices etc. Just because you can find a sucker to buy your product doesn't make it economical. The economy is a much larger entity than just one developer building one skyscraper. Even if he makes money it doesn't mean the economy as a whole won't suffer as a result. At any rate, there is no point arguing about it now, we'll just have to wait 5 years and see how the market plays out. I'd say this tower gets built and a few others starting construction now, but the wave just behind them probably won't.

That's not, "being an angry person", it's just being old enough to have seen people gushing over dozens of other amazing buildings that never got built and knowing that these kind of "extreme" buildings are always the first to get cut the second the market hits even the slightest bump.

JustSomeGuyWho Dec 4, 2014 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6831571)
No, I'm quite sure it's everyone here who thinks these super-skinny ultra-luxury buildings make economic sense that are basing their opinions on emotion. We all want to see them get built, but at least I can admit they don't make sense. Sure, someone will probably buy all the units out, but there have also been people who bought tulip bulbs for thousands of dollars each, people who spent billions of tech stocks that aren't worth the paper they are printed on now, people who bought gold at absurd prices etc. Just because you can find a sucker to buy your product doesn't make it economical. The economy is a much larger entity than just one developer building one skyscraper. Even if he makes money it doesn't mean the economy as a whole won't suffer as a result. At any rate, there is no point arguing about it now, we'll just have to wait 5 years and see how the market plays out. I'd say this tower gets built and a few others starting construction now, but the wave just behind them probably won't.

That's not, "being an angry person", it's just being old enough to have seen people gushing over dozens of other amazing buildings that never got built and knowing that these kind of "extreme" buildings are always the first to get cut the second the market hits even the slightest bump.

Ok ... trying to be objective about this as possible ... taking any feelings I may have about this building out of it, I don't understand how this building doesn't make economic sense. Simply because it doesn't make optimal use of space and resources doesn't mean it doesn't make economic sense. The developers will profit, the market currently exists for it and the buyers will own something that likely will retain its value (something that might not be true in any city other than a global city like NY), the increased value of the property will bring in tax revenue. What exactly could be built on that property that would make more sense economically and even if it could, why is that important?

antinimby Dec 5, 2014 12:34 AM

I don't think the illustrator mistook West End Ave with Hudson Yards. Look at where 498 WEA is located in the rendering and where the rest of the HY towers are.

Crawford Dec 5, 2014 2:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6831571)
No, I'm quite sure it's everyone here who thinks these super-skinny ultra-luxury buildings make economic sense that are basing their opinions on emotion.

No, it's probably because developers, despite all the obstacles, are building these super-skinny towers, and making a crapload of money. That seems like pretty good evidence of "economic sense" to me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6831571)
Just because you can find a sucker to buy your product doesn't make it economical.

LOL. If someone is buying your product, and you're making a profit, then yeah, that's the definition of economic sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6831571)
That's not, "being an angry person", it's just being old enough to have seen people gushing over dozens of other amazing buildings that never got built and knowing that these kind of "extreme" buildings are always the first to get cut the second the market hits even the slightest bump.

Really? Could you inform us of this supposed time back in history?

Quite a claim, considering there were barely any supertalls in the world until a few years ago, and almost no residential supertalls, built or planned.

Did all these claimed residential supertalls from past booms disappear or something? Maybe you could name a city and list all these dozens of planned market rate supertalls from a past boom?

NYguy Dec 5, 2014 5:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830266)
Of course they are for show! They are a horribly inefficient use of resources. Just because billionaires have so much money that they can afford it doesn't change that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6831571)
No, I'm quite sure it's everyone here who thinks these super-skinny ultra-luxury buildings make economic sense that are basing their opinions on emotion. .


Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6830650)
It has EVERYTHING to do with show. The demand is driven by people who want a 1000ft high view so they can show off how rich they are!


OK, I don't know if you're about 12 years old, or just trolling. But those repeated statements seem to indicate one or the other, and we've entertained them enough.
If you want to go on a rant about how people spend their money, do it somewhere else.



Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6830842)


Very nice.

CityGuy87 Dec 5, 2014 5:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6832042)
OK, I don't know if you're about 12 years old, or just trolling. But those repeated statements seem to indicate one or the other, and we've entertained them enough.
If you want to go on a rant about how people spend their money, do it somewhere else.






Very nice.

It's missing 15 Penn (if that's still on the table), Manhattan West and as someone else pointed out, the Hudson Yards part of this render doesn't seem as big or defined as it will actually be. But other than that, it's the best look into the future of the skyline that we currently have.

Guiltyspark Dec 5, 2014 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CityGuy87 (Post 6832067)
It's missing 15 Penn (if that's still on the table), Manhattan West and as someone else pointed out, the Hudson Yards part of this render doesn't seem as big or defined as it will actually be. But other than that, it's the best look into the future of the skyline that we currently have.

15 Penn is so far off the table right now that it rolled outside and the dog buried it next to the Chicago Spire.

NYguy Dec 5, 2014 2:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6832180)
15 Penn is so far off the table right now that it rolled outside and the dog buried it next to the Chicago Spire.

It's hardly in the company of the Chicago Spire, and not that far off the table. It's only been revived due to tenant interests, otherwise it would still be on the shelf.


http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/famed-h...sfp=3160509449

Quote:

The Hotel Pennsylvania may not be safe from the wrecking ball after all.

Vornado chief Steve Roth revealed Tuesday that financial firms have approached the real-estate powerhouse about resurrecting its plans to raze the famed hotel opposite Madison Square Garden and replace it with a 3 million square-foot tower, known as 15 Penn Plaza.

“We are getting very interesting intriguing incomings as to office tenants that might want that site,” Roth said during a conference call.

“We are putting our big toe in the marketplace to explore the opportunity to land a major anchor tenant for the site and the Penn Plaza district,” he added. “We are up to our eyeballs in it, but there is nothing specific we are able to go public with.”

You can follow up on that in the 15 Penn thread...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...162701&page=53

NYguy Dec 5, 2014 10:13 PM

Flyover with cityrealty.com


Video Link




Video Link

Crawford Dec 6, 2014 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6832180)
15 Penn is so far off the table right now that it rolled outside and the dog buried it next to the Chicago Spire.

15 Penn will almost certainly be built, and has nothing to do with Chicago Spire, which never had a chance. For one, 15 Penn is owned by one of the most powerful and successful developers on the planet (Steven Roth's Vornado).

Vornado is actively marketing 15 Penn to major space users. Merrill Lynch even signed a lease for the entire tower a few years ago, but backed out during the financial crisis.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.