SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198228)

hunser Jun 27, 2014 1:38 AM

^ 80 South Street? And the other one maybe 22 Thames or another 57th Street tower.

TechTalkGuy Jun 27, 2014 1:39 AM

:previous: Very interesting, NYguy!

As the engineering technology improves, we may see taller super-skinny towers in the future. :)

NYguy Jun 27, 2014 5:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6633784)
^ 80 South Street? And the other one maybe 22 Thames or another 57th Street tower.


Stern is reportedly in the running for the Juniors site in Brooklyn, maybe he wants to bring them on for that project as well.

hunser Jun 27, 2014 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6633972)
Stern is reportedly in the running for the Juniors site in Brooklyn, maybe he wants to bring them on for that project as well.

A SHoP - designed supertall in DT Brooklyn would be epic. I really dig ShoP, their work is awesome.

dumbo Jun 28, 2014 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6634091)
A SHoP - designed supertall in DT Brooklyn would be epic. I really dig ShoP, their work is awesome.

second that. depending on the height, i might be able to see it out my window.

NYguy Jul 4, 2014 12:56 PM

They're back, and at it again...


http://www.mas.org/urbanplanning/accidental-skyline/

Accidental Skyline
Too often, New Yorkers are caught off guard by new development in their neighborhoods.
The Accidental Skyline offers tools to help demystify the city planning process and bring the public into the conversation.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156420998/original.jpg



Quote:

The maps above show where new development could occur across New York City – allowing New Yorkers to assess how their neighborhoods could be impacted. These maps add to a body of work available on this site, including The Accidental Skyline, presentations and media coverage. Additional reports will highlight how other cities are responding to these challenges.

MAS embarked on its Accidental Skyline initiative in 2013 in response to the super-tall towers rising along the southern border of Central Park. For the most part, these buildings are being built as-of-right, without public or environmental review. When completed, they will cast new shadows on the park and change views of the city. While MAS’s work started in response to the buildings near Central Park, the issue is one that increasingly concerns neighborhoods across the city. Many New Yorkers feel left out of the planning process and are unaware of development proposals until shovels hit the ground.

These slender, hyper tall buildings are a result of a hot real estate market driven by high demand for luxury condos and made possible by relatively recent advancements in building technologies. Because there has been no public process associated with these buildings, many New Yorkers were surprised when construction started. Growth is good for the city, but with development pressure high in many areas, projects should proceed in a thoughtful and transparent manner.

How do we fix it?

We have four main goals in this work:

1.Ensure robust civic engagement as the city develops and grows

2.Bring greater transparency to the city’s planning process

3.Highlight the impacts of development on NYC neighborhoods, including parks, open space, infrastructure and the skyline

4.Secure policy and regulatory changes that protect the city’s vital open spaces and create a better balance between benefits received by private developers and impact on the public realm

There are many regulatory and policy changes that could provide more transparency and pursue a more thoughtful approach to development:

Protecting parks from overdevelopment. The city could limit building height around parks, especially small parks, where one or two large buildings would greatly affect the amount of sunlight a park receives, or establish setback or design requirements that reduce shadows. Another option is having developers contribute to a park maintenance fund to offset impacts of development.

Alerting Community Boards and elected officials when zoning lot mergers occur. Right now local officials and Community Boards are not notified when developers assemble air rights, meaning that the process largely happens behind closed doors. A simple notification could bring more transparency to the process.

Requiring public review for zoning lot mergers above a certain threshold, and potentially even a higher level of review for very large transfers. There is a precedent for this in other areas of the city. For example, certain air rights transfers in the Theater District require approval by the City Planning Commission. The bigger the transfer, the higher the level of scrutiny.



Video Link




These people are determined to kill the real estate industry in the city, but I don't believe any of these measures will move beyond discussion. The city already has a long and complicated approvals process, and its trying to streamline that, make things better, not worse.



This isn't accurate, not just height, but some location is off...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156421049/original.jpg

JayPro Jul 4, 2014 12:58 PM

Kill that noise...............

Onn Jul 4, 2014 1:27 PM

If they want to put up a fight, we'll put up a fight about it. By living in New York City they should expect these kinds of projects. This pace of construction isn't going to continue forever either, this is probably the biggest surge we'll see in our lifetimes. There are plenty of places they can move where they wouldn't have to worry about such new construction. I've hear upstate New York is struggling.

NYguy Jul 4, 2014 1:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6641680)
If they want to put up a fight, we'll put up a fight about it. By living in New York City they should expect these kinds of projects. This pace of construction isn't going to continue forever either, this is probably the biggest surge we'll see in our lifetimes. There are plenty of places they can move where they wouldn't have to worry about such new construction. I've hear upstate New York is struggling.


I just don't understand the fear of tall buildings. And this obsession with trying to be in control of air rights transfers is ridiculous. It's not as if they are creating more development rights, they are just transferring them from one location to another. What that amounts to is fewer sites being built on, for which they should be happy. But no, not content with their role in the drawn out approvals process, they want to have a say in any as-of-right development as well.

chris08876 Jul 4, 2014 1:56 PM

The public is full of morons. There shouldn't be a public approval process. The average person wouldn't know a good looking project if it was right in front of them. Public opinion on real estate only hurts developments. An example could be Tower Verre. Fantastic piece of architecture, yet you have those who fought for its demise. Luckily, they failed, but at a cost of a height reduction which on that tower is a travesty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6641686)
I just don't understand the fear of tall buildings.

Yea I don't get it either. Its just backwards, asinine thinking when you think about it. Especially when you're in the 2nd city in the world with the most skyscrapers and highrises which is dramatically increasing that number to well over 6700. (Hong Kong being 1st). The review process should stick to individuals who understand real estate, engineering, architecture, and economics. Public review committees are full of old, naggy people with the IQ of a kumquat. Yet, this is not just a NYC issue. Miami for example has to have a public referendum on Skyrise; which I fear will kill it. Likewise, the public is viciously fighting Miami Beach's new tallest which is proposed. Even in San Francisco, its ridiculously hard to get a project approved of great height. Sickening when you think about it. Tall buildings represent economic prosperity, and power. You would think people would be happy about it. :???:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6641680)
If they want to put up a fight, we'll put up a fight about it. By living in New York City they should expect these kinds of projects. This pace of construction isn't going to continue forever either, this is probably the biggest surge we'll see in our lifetimes. There are plenty of places they can move where they wouldn't have to worry about such new construction. I've hear upstate New York is struggling.

I think they will fail in their fight. When there are millions at stakes, they better get a good lawyer with their inane lawsuits and nonsense.

Quote:

Protecting parks from overdevelopment. The city could limit building height around parks, especially small parks, where one or two large buildings would greatly affect the amount of sunlight a park receives, or establish setback or design requirements that reduce shadows. Another option is having developers contribute to a park maintenance fund to offset impacts of development.
Here we go again with the sunlight issue. :facepalm:

animatedmartian Jul 4, 2014 3:10 PM

People have a stubborn idea of keeping things the same. They get used to seeing or doing things a certain way and they want to keep it like that regardless of whether it actually hurts growth.

Even over here in Ann Arbor, people get upset over anything taller than 5 floors. NIMBYs start making claims about the city being too crowded, too dark because of the shadows, or losing the town's historical charm. It's all about keeping the status quo.

JayPro Jul 4, 2014 3:20 PM

Looky looky...I can do an imitation of a YIMBY and an antiNIMBY at the same time:

"Hey YIMBYoid zoom-dweebie! This is you:

:brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall: "

Hypothalamus Jul 4, 2014 3:52 PM

Quote:

Protecting parks from overdevelopment. The city could limit building height around parks, especially small parks, where one or two large buildings would greatly affect the amount of sunlight a park receives, or establish setback or design requirements that reduce shadows. Another option is having developers contribute to a park maintenance fund to offset impacts of development.
Oops. They need to be very careful here-- this is another "We want more affordable housing!" deal. NY's parks are already incredibly manicured and kept up. Given the natural adaptivity of Central Park's deciduous plants, and even more human protection and up keep, they could survive with very minimal light exposure. And they don't need light at all during the winter-- they're dormant...

Submariner Jul 4, 2014 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6641686)
I just don't understand the fear of tall buildings. And this obsession with trying to be in control of air rights transfers is ridiculous. It's not as if they are creating more development rights, they are just transferring them from one location to another. What that amounts to is fewer sites being built on, for which they should be happy. But no, not content with their role in the drawn out approvals process, they want to have a say in any as-of-right development as well.

I'm telling you, it's a psychological disorder.

If, for example, some developer was looking to add 100,00 units of housing to CPS then I could understand opposition. You can't add that many people to a relatively small area unless it's coupled with large infrastructure improvements, but adding anywhere between 500 and 700 high end apartments will naturally, not have the same effect.

As for the "THINK OF THE TREES" nonsense - it's just that. Even their own literature shows that there is very little impact created by the towers regarding shadows, and that's when they were basing their predictions off of December 21st projections - when the sun is the lowest in the sky,

Rational people who don't want to be surrounded by new development would choose to do the rational thing and move out of one of the densest cities in the world. Many of these projects replace old, derelict buildings that would at best, do nothing but blight the area and at worst, create negative financial impact. Think about the huge amounts of development going on in LIC and Brooklyn. 15 years ago they were wastelands, now they're booming with growth. Why would anyone oppose that? Afraid of change? In a relatively progressive city like NYC? Were the pimps beating their hoes on the sidewalk and the needles littering the gutter something we should want to return to?

I know you know this; I'm genuinely perplexed as to why people oppose development (unless of course it's for legitimate concerns like infrastructure upgrades)

Blaze23 Jul 4, 2014 5:02 PM

There's one thing that bothers me about this whole thing, it seems like these guys are very vocal about their opposition to these towers and feel like they can influence the process enough to end up with something that's closer to their liking.

But I'm not even sure their the majority opinion when it comes to this, I think most New Yorkers have no problem and even are in favor of taller buildings being built in areas that are already dense or underdeveloped, think of how proud ppl were to have the tallest tower in the Western Hemisphere back in NYC, 1WTC ( I'll spare the argument against that ruling).

I think this point of view needs to be more vocal before those nuts start gaining ground, especially considering they have a supporter among them that can make things quite annoying (Gaele Brewer).

wilfredo267 Jul 4, 2014 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6641921)
There's one thing that bothers me about this whole thing, it seems like these guys are very vocal about their opposition to these towers and feel like they can influence the process enough to end up with something that's closer to their liking.

But I'm not even sure their the majority opinion when it comes to this, I think most New Yorkers have no problem and even are in favor of taller buildings being built in areas that are already dense or underdeveloped, think of how proud ppl were to have the tallest tower in the Western Hemisphere back in NYC, 1WTC ( I'll spare the argument against that ruling).

I think this point of view needs to be more vocal before those nuts start gaining ground, especially considering they have a supporter among them that can make things quite annoying (Gaele Brewer).

l wish there was a grassroots organization whose sole purpose was to refute all the nimby nonsense.

TechTalkGuy Jul 5, 2014 2:29 PM

:previous: I've been away for a few days and return to see a bunch of off-topic nonsense about height.

Any developments around 111 W. 57th?
NYguy?

NYguy Jul 6, 2014 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6642753)
:previous: I've been away for a few days and return to see a bunch of off-topic nonsense about height.

It may not concern you, but height is really the only reason this tower is ever in the news. Though I'm sure if the height were chopped in half, you might have a thought or two about it.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6641877)
If, for example, some developer was looking to add 100,00 units of housing to CPS then I could understand opposition. You can't add that many people to a relatively small area unless it's coupled with large infrastructure improvements, but adding anywhere between 500 and 700 high end apartments will naturally, not have the same effect.

They don't even have that argument to stand on, because remember, a lot of these people will only be in town for weeks at a time. But when they're here, it'll no doubt be to spend more money on the local economy.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6641921)
There's one thing that bothers me about this whole thing, it seems like these guys are very vocal about their opposition to these towers and feel like they can influence the process enough to end up with something that's closer to their liking.

The Municipal Arts Society is a fine organization, don't get me wrong, but they just have their priorities screwed up in a quest to stay relevant. Shadows over parks is nowhere near as high a priority for New Yorkers as you would think from this crusade of the MAS. So much wasted effort could be put to better use on behalf of more New Yorkers instead of the relative few that are whining about these new towers.



Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6641704)
The public is full of morons. There shouldn't be a public approval process. The average person wouldn't know a good looking project if it was right in front of them. Public opinion on real estate only hurts developments. An example could be Tower Verre. Fantastic piece of architecture, yet you have those who fought for its demise. Luckily, they failed, but at a cost of a height reduction which on that tower is a travesty.

I fault one person for that whole debacle. It made no sense then, and it just seems more ridiculous now.

gttx Jul 7, 2014 10:18 PM

Quote:

Growth is good for the city, but with development pressure high in many areas, projects should proceed in a thoughtful and transparent manner.
Quote:

The Accidental Skyline offers tools to help demystify the city planning process and bring the public into the conversation.
They solved their overarching concern in the same article. The tool they have created seems to make potential development pretty transparent. What else is the problem?

Of course, if you are a property owner you should already be aware of what is going on around you - ignorance is no excuse.

NYguy Jul 8, 2014 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx (Post 6644839)
They solved their overarching concern in the same article. The tool they have created seems to make potential development pretty transparent. What else is the problem?

They want to bring the "public" into the conversation. That's code for "we want to be able to make demands as a tradeoff for any development that happens in our area". As I recall, the local CB loved the design for this tower, loved the treatment of the landmark. But the MAS thinks they should be more alarmed by the ability of the developer to do so in the first place. In a city that has so many regulations over design and what can be built, they think there should be more hurdles to jump.

BTW, not to throw us too far off topic, but here's another reason things need to be kept simple...


http://www.citylandnyc.org/allow-you...munity-boards/

Quote:

Last week, the City Council passed a resolution in support of allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to serve on their local community boards. The resolution throws City support behind Albany legislation that would amend the City Charter and Public Officers Law to let the teens become full voting members of their boards.

Ask the average New Yorker what a community board does, and you might receive a blank stare. But the boards are the most local form of government, with key advisory powers on land use issues, addressing community concerns and much more. It’s important that they fully represent their communities.

There are 8.3 million residents of New York City and 20 percent of them are under 18 years old. These New Yorkers deserve a say in the decisions that affect their neighborhoods, education, and parks. We should not deny civically engaged teenagers the chance to serve on the grounds of their age alone. At the age of 16, Scott Stringer was appointed to Manhattan Community Board 12 through special permission. Now, he is the City Comptroller. The values of service and participation that a community board instills have clearly stayed with him to this day.

Community boards often lack for new voices, which is part of the reason why the public hears little about them. If our most engaged and enthusiastic 16 and-17-year-olds were to join Community Boards, we would see a shift in how the public engages with them.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.