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.

NYguy Dec 7, 2014 1:45 PM

That 15 Penn conversation has been moved over here...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...162701&page=53




http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...lics-roar-back

Retailing relics roar back
Department stores are thriving in a city where they were once written off, aided by a wave of tourists and a clutch of big new developments.



http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pb...MaxW=640&q=100

BY ADRIANNE PASQUARELLI
DECEMBER 7, 2014


Quote:

First, Nordstrom announced it would open its inaugural New York City store on West 57th Street. Neiman Marcus followed, unveiling plans for its first New York store, a 250,000-square-foot flagship at Hudson Yards, west of Penn Station. Saks Fifth Avenue said it plans to open its second Manhattan outpost, at Brookfield Place downtown, and Nordstrom is already said to be shopping for a second store, in lower Manhattan.

Not since the days of Miracle on 34th Street, when the Macy's Santa famously directed shoppers to archrival Gimbels, has New York City been such a department-store town.
Fueled by more than 50 million tourists pouring into the city annually, record high employment and spending, along with a bumper crop of huge new real estate developments, department-store growth shows no signs of slowing. Their return comes at a time when the rise of omni-channel retailing—in which consumers can buy via the Web, shop at stores and browse by smartphone—has made a brick-and-mortar presence more vital than ever.

A decade ago, when Bloomingdale's opened a second location, in SoHo, many wondered if there were enough high-end shoppers to go around. These days, stores are doing everything they can to cash in on the growth. Barneys New York will open its second store next year, in Chelsea. Macy's and Bergdorf Goodman are lavishing millions of dollars on multiyear renovations designed to lure the coveted millennial shopper and stay ahead of the ever-expanding pack.

Few could have predicted such a turnaround. The department store, as a retail species, had its urban heyday in the early 20th century and spent much of the last half in a state of decline. Long gone are the once venerable Abraham & Straus, Gimbels, B. Altman & Co., Alexander's and Bonwit Teller. The big chains turned their backs on city flagships in favor of outposts at suburban shopping malls. Brands specializing in books, clothing and electronics expanded into stand-alone shops that cannibalized department stores' sales.

.....But in recent years, department stores have seen a Big Apple renaissance as growth in suburban malls has stalled. The stores have become more tech-savvy to reach a greater variety of shoppers. Macy's, which also owns Bloomingdale's, has reinvented itself by building a powerful e-commerce arm that few rivals can match, and by filling its stores with merchandise tailored to local markets. It's also spending $400 million on a renovation of its Herald Square flagship, to be completed next year.

Others are making digital inroads as well. Seattle-based Nordstrom, which reported $12.5 billion in revenue last year, expects e-commerce sales, as well as sales from its discount chain, Rack, to make up half of all sales in the next five years. Nordstrom's stock has soared more than 20% in the past 12 months.

Retail experts say its store on West 57th Street—285,000 square feet on seven floors that Nordstrom reportedly spent $103 million to buy—will advertise its namesake brand when the shop opens in 2018, leading to higher Web traffic in addition to brick-and-mortar buyers.

"Just that very presence will drive [purchases] on their website, because of the amount of eyeballs thinking of Nordstrom on a daily basis—the marketing in bus shelters or on taxis," said Mortimer Singer, chief executive of Marvin Traub Associates, a retail-focused consulting firm.


.....At the same time, a number of developers have made attracting high-profile department stores a priority at their multibillion-dollar projects, betting that the right store can set the tone for the lucrative retail portions of their properties. In Hudson Yards, the 1 million-square foot complex where Dallas-based Neiman Marcus will occupy floors five through seven when it opens in 2018, developer Related Cos. will reap higher rents by leasing upper floors to a retailer rather than an office tenant.

Because it will be the first and only Neiman Marcus in the city, the store is expected to become a shopping destination. According to a spokeswoman for Neiman, the chain, which also owns Bergdorf, wasn't looking to open a store in Manhattan until it was approached by Hudson Yards' developer with an offer too good to refuse.

The new developments at Hudson Yards and the tower that will rise on West 57th Street give Neiman and Nordstrom the relatively rare opportunity in older urban areas to design their own dream spaces.

Already, the prospect of Neiman at Hudson Yards is attracting shops to an area growing with residents. Brokers say other luxury brands—jewelry shops, apparel companies—are also interested in leasing space west of Seventh Avenue on 57th Street, a strip never before sought after.

"The department stores are taking root in New York City's fastest-growing residential neighborhoods," said Ed Hogan, national director of retail leasing at Brookfield Office Properties, which has signed on Saks to anchor its Brookfield Place mall across from the World Trade Center. He noted that there has long been a paucity of luxury department stores downtown.

Zapatan Dec 7, 2014 5:12 PM

It seems almost too good to be true that this thing is really u/c and that NY and the US will have a new highest roof.

We're long overdue though and this building has grown on me a lot so I'm stoked to see it rise. :)

Onn Dec 7, 2014 6:40 PM

I wish they would stop calling Nordstrom and other retailers "brick and motor" stores. It sounds so old fashioned and it's not that. There's plenty of potential for department stores. I'm happy for Nordstrom and New York and Extell!

antinimby Dec 7, 2014 7:11 PM

^ Good point. I don't think there will be a time in the foreseeable future where clothing sales online will ever overtake physical stores. Unlike electronics, apparel needs to bought in person.

Crawford Dec 7, 2014 9:08 PM

That means Manhattan is getting five new department stores-

Neiman Marcus- Hudson Yards
Barneys- Chelsea
Saks- Brookfield Place
Nordstrom- 225 West 57th
Nordstrom- One Wall Street

photoLith Dec 7, 2014 10:01 PM

I don't understand why Neiman Marcus and such are such a huge deal in nyc. To me growing up they looked just like macys.

hunser Dec 8, 2014 12:46 AM

I really hope the parapet will break the 1,500 foot mark. The tower sits on a higher ground than most towers, especially when compared to 1WTC. Sure will look pretty impressive on the skyline.

Perklol Dec 8, 2014 4:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6834929)
I really hope the parapet will break the 1,500 foot mark. The tower sits on a higher ground than most towers, especially when compared to 1WTC. Sure will look pretty impressive on the skyline.

1,500' roof/parapet :yes:

chris08876 Dec 8, 2014 4:49 AM

Even though this technically in the eyes of the CTBUH shorter than 1WTC, what's important is the roof height. Almost 50 feet taller to the roof than the Sears, and we all know how imposing Sears is.

Zapatan Dec 8, 2014 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6835157)
Even though this technically in the eyes of the CTBUH shorter than 1WTC, what's important is the roof height. Almost 50 feet taller to the roof than the Sears, and we all know how imposing Sears is.

1775' is really dumb honestly, they should pass the CN tower at 1815 to have highest freestanding structure in the Western world while their at it.

Am I the only one who thinks it's too good to be true that it really would end up around the original 15-1550 range? Most of the really tall cool proposals in the US get scrapped for something shorter.

Onn Dec 8, 2014 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835197)
1775' is really dumb honestly, they should pass the CN tower at 1815 to have highest freestanding structure in the Western world while their at it.

Am I the only one who thinks it's too good to be true that it really would end up around the original 15-1550 range? Most of the really tall cool proposals in the US get scrapped for something shorter.

The height will be passed, its just 9/11, WTC rebuilding, and 1WTC are still fresh in everyone's minds right now. There would obviously be criticism if 1WTC was topped so soon, its not happening right now. You'll just have to be patient. :)

gramsjdg Dec 8, 2014 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835197)
1775' is really dumb honestly, they should pass the CN tower at 1815 to have highest freestanding structure in the Western world while their at it.

Am I the only one who thinks it's too good to be true that it really would end up around the original 15-1550 range? Most of the really tall cool proposals in the US get scrapped for something shorter.



I think this depends upon whether the actual roof is 1490 ft. The "summer 2014" version had the parapet at 1478' and the actual roof at 1428'. If the design is the same and the actual roof is now 1490, then the parapet should in theory be 1540'-1550'.

NYguy Dec 8, 2014 5:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 6834749)
I don't understand why Neiman Marcus and such are such a huge deal in nyc. To me growing up they looked just like macys.

They are a huge deal in Manhattan because it is the pulse of retail and these stores have tried for years to find a location to open, unlike stores like Macy's or Bloomingdales, which have signature, iconic locations. It is a VERY huge deal that these stores are opening in Manhattan, more so even for the Nordstrom opening than the tower itself. People won't care as much about another supertall coming to the skyline, but a new super department store? They'll be lined up for the opening. Mark my words.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6835202)
The height will be passed, its just 9/11, WTC rebuilding, and 1WTC are still fresh in everyone's minds right now. There would obviously be criticism if 1WTC was topped so soon, its not happening right now. You'll just have to be patient. :)

No one cares about any of that, not the man on the street, not the developers. If a developer wants to top it, it'll be topped. Remember, Gary Barnett didn't want a spire at all on the building. If he'd have stuck with that, it wouldn't be approaching the Freedom Tower's height at all. Since other towers have popped up with increasing height, they've added a spire. But Barnett was never aiming to build the tallest tower in town.

Zapatan Dec 8, 2014 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 6835678)
I think this depends upon whether the actual roof is 1490 ft. The "summer 2014" version had the parapet at 1478' and the actual roof at 1428'. If the design is the same and the actual roof is now 1490, then the parapet should in theory be 1540'-1550'.

Well, let's hope that's the case although 1490' is a great height to either the roof or parapet.

I'm not trying to be overly negative or anything it's just that issues usually arise when something this tall gets proposed. It's u/c though which is a step in the right direction :cheers:

NYguy Dec 8, 2014 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835686)
I'm not trying to be overly negative or anything it's just that issues usually arise when something this tall gets proposed.

It's a non-issue that plays out in your own mind. Towers have been decreased in height, and towers have been increased in height. And every one is on an individual basis.

Crawford Dec 8, 2014 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835197)
Most of the really tall cool proposals in the US get scrapped for something shorter.

Could you name some of these towers? I can only think of one that was slightly shortened by a developer, 3 WTC.

Every other building I can think of got taller. 432 Park, 225 W. 57, Two Hudson Yards, One Vanderbilt, Steinway Tower, etc.

Crawford Dec 8, 2014 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 6834749)
I don't understand why Neiman Marcus and such are such a huge deal in nyc. To me growing up they looked just like macys.

Neiman Marcus has nothing to do with Macys. They sell totally different merchandise.

It's a fairly big deal because there are almost no cities in the U.S. with downtown department stores, and NYC, on top of the dozen or so major Manhattan flagships, is basically getting another half-dozen major department stores. Nothing like this has happened in the past century or so (almost all the existing department stores were built long ago).

Submariner Dec 8, 2014 5:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6835701)
Could you name some of these towers? I can only think of one that was slightly shortened by a developer, 3 WTC.

Every other building I can think of got taller. 432 Park, 225 W. 57, Two Hudson Yards, One Vanderbilt, Steinway Tower, etc.

HU north, One57 and Tower Verre come to mind.

Not that I'm complaining though...the development going on right now is fantastic.

JustSomeGuyWho Dec 8, 2014 5:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6835706)
Neiman Marcus has nothing to do with Macys. They sell totally different merchandise.

It's a fairly big deal because there are almost no cities in the U.S. with downtown department stores, and NYC, on top of the dozen or so major Manhattan flagships, is basically getting another half-dozen major department stores. Nothing like this has happened in the past century or so (almost all the existing department stores were built long ago).

Well, off the top of my head outside of NYC there is Macy's in downtown Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Cincinnati and Chicago, Neiman Marcus in downtown Dallas and Chicago ... so, not exactly true ... BUT I would agree it's nowhere near it's heyday when department stores were almost exclusively located in a city's downtown and in many cities they now exist only in the suburban malls.

Seems like a pretty big deal to me.

Zapatan Dec 8, 2014 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6835701)
Could you name some of these towers? I can only think of one that was slightly shortened by a developer, 3 WTC.

Every other building I can think of got taller. 432 Park, 225 W. 57, Two Hudson Yards, One Vanderbilt, Steinway Tower, etc.

Chicago Spire, Miami's new tallest, Seattle's new tallest, ACC in Philadelphia, Transbay Tower in SF, Wilshire in LA just to name a few.

Because NY is NY maybe it will be different but if the US is all about economics then I find it hard to believe there will really be a 450+ meter tower to the roof. Hopefully I'm wrong.

antinimby Dec 8, 2014 6:46 PM

It's not really a big deal to most New Yorkers that NM and Nordstrom is opening new stores in Manhattan. It just feels that way to us because every article about it is posted here.

And the only reason it gets news article written about it is because they are new to the city. Anything new is news. I remember a number of years ago how the opening of a Whole Foods @ TWC was a news story when they first entered the NY market.

Onn Dec 8, 2014 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835821)
Chicago Spire, Miami's new tallest, Seattle's new tallest, ACC in Philadelphia, Transbay Tower in SF, Wilshire in LA just to name a few.

Because NY is NY maybe it will be different but if the US is all about economics then I find it hard to believe there will really be a 450+ meter tower to the roof. Hopefully I'm wrong.

There is a possibility there could 450+ meter towers in other cities yes. But your talking about a timeline that spans decades, not years. There isn't going to be an explosion of 450+ meters in other cities suddenly. However, on the same token, the rest of the world's development of such tall buildings is also going to slow down. Not the least of which is because of the sharp drop in oil prices in the Middle East but also because China's construction costs are rising rapidly.

Crawford Dec 8, 2014 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835821)
Chicago Spire, Miami's new tallest, Seattle's new tallest, ACC in Philadelphia, Transbay Tower in SF, Wilshire in LA just to name a few.

Well I thought we were talking NYC. None of these are NYC.

And some of these buildings weren't shortened, they were fantasy proposals. If a building wasn't built, then obviously it wasn't shortened.

But no one (outside of skyscraper fan-dom) seriously thought the Chicago Spire or that Philly tower were actually going to be built as described. My brother-in-law is a very prominent commercial real estate broker in Chicago and I remember him making jokes about the Spire back 7 or 8 years ago. It was always nonsense to real estate professionals.

NYguy Dec 8, 2014 7:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6835821)
Chicago Spire, Miami's new tallest, Seattle's new tallest, ACC in Philadelphia, Transbay Tower in SF, Wilshire in LA just to name a few.

Because NY is NY maybe it will be different but if the US is all about economics then I find it hard to believe there will really be a 450+ meter tower to the roof. Hopefully I'm wrong.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6835860)
There is a possibility there could 450+ meter towers in other cities yes. But your talking about a timeline that spans decades, not years. There isn't going to be an explosion of 450+ meters in other cities suddenly. However, on the same token, the rest of the world's development of such tall buildings is also going to slow down. Not the least of which is because of the sharp drop in oil prices in the Middle East but also because China's construction costs are rising rapidly.


For the last time, I'm telling you two (and whoever else) to knock it off. You take every opportunity to throw these discussions into what's being built around the world. Give it a rest or create a thread where you can discuss those issues until you turn purple.




Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6835840)
It's not really a big deal to most New Yorkers that NM and Nordstrom is opening new stores in Manhattan. It just feels that way to us because every article about it is posted here.

It's a very big deal in retail to have these stores opening in Manhattan, and it's a very big deal to residents as well, not the least of which is because even in Manhattan, there are areas underserved, and the west side is among them (it's not known for its shopping). And that's beyond the fact that each new opening brings much needed jobs, whatever you may think about that. Step inside any one of Manhattan's department stores, and tell me you don't think it's a big deal. It's a very big deal, but I don't expect you will get that until these stores open and are full of shoppers and people working.

Perklol Dec 8, 2014 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6835840)
It's not really a big deal to most New Yorkers that NM and Nordstrom is opening new stores in Manhattan. It just feels that way to us because every article about it is posted here.

And the only reason it gets news article written about it is because they are new to the city. Anything new is news. I remember a number of years ago how the opening of a Whole Foods @ TWC was a news story when they first entered the NY market.

+1

I think its a slow news day during the holiday months.

tdawg Dec 8, 2014 11:43 PM

So Nordstrom is already shopping for a second downtown location, Saks is opening a second store downtown, Barneys a new Chelsea flagship, and Neiman's is finally entering the market. This signals the greatest era in NYC department stores since the Macy's / Gimbals / B. Altman dominated 30s.

NYguy Dec 9, 2014 5:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdawg (Post 6836256)
So Nordstrom is already shopping for a second downtown location, Saks is opening a second store downtown, Barneys a new Chelsea flagship, and Neiman's is finally entering the market. This signals the greatest era in NYC department stores since the Macy's / Gimbals / B. Altman dominated 30s.


I think it does also. We get the greatest era in skyscraper construction to go along with it. So many great things are happening in the city, which has been written off multiple times. They'll never learn.


http://nypost.com/2014/12/08/retail-...ted-this-fall/

Retail leasing skyrocketed this fall


https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...0&h=450&crop=1


By Lois Weiss
December 8, 2014


Quote:

Fall has turned out to be a season full of leasing for retail real estate. Deals with Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Lowe’s and Amazon have added to the growing retail excitement that will also include the first Nordstrom, in the base of a 1,775-foot tower at 225 W. 57th St., that will shake up the shopping landscape.

Saks’ parent, Hudson’s Bay Company, signed leases with Brookfield Property Partners to open an 85,000-square-foot Saks Fifth Avenue store in Brookfield Place, at 225 Liberty St., and a 55,000-square-foot Saks OFF 5TH store at One Liberty Plaza.

HBC is also leasing 400,000 square feet for offices at Brookfield Place as its local headquarters.

The city’s first Neiman Marcus will anchor the 1 million-square-foot Hudson Yards shopping podium with a 250,000-square-foot multilevel store that will open in fall 2018.

Amazon recently announced it will have its first ever retail distribution location and 400,000 square feet of offices at 7 W. 34th St., opposite the Empire State Building.

The home improvement store, Lowe’s, has also agreed to lease its first two Manhattan retail locations: at 2008 Broadway at W. 68th St. and 635 Sixth Ave. in Chelsea, in an area with numerous big-box stores.

Both will be 30,000 square feet and follow Home Depot’s earlier push into the city.

“All of the developers are 100 percent focused on what is being utilized on the ground floor,” said Brad Cohen of Eastern Consolidated, who is representing several residential projects.

“It is so important to have the right tenants and to have what their residents and the surrounding area can utilize.”

Fashion firms and national tenants remain on the prowl for locations but as always, building owners worry about what goes in on the ground floor.

Peter Riguardi, tri-state president, JLL, said, “Today, we need to make [the building] attractive to millennials so we need to get a retailer that makes it attractive.”

By 2020, 30 percent of all retail sales will come from the millennials. “The millennials want to live in the city, and from a retail perspective, the millennials are our future,” Joanne Podell, vice chairman of retail services at Cushman & Wakefield, said at a recent Real Estate Board of New York luncheon where Riguardi and residential broker Diane Ramirez, CEO of Halstead, also spoke.

“We have areas where if you don’t have retail, you don’t survive,” said Ramirez, pointing to Queens, where there are many new residential projects but a lack of services and choices. “It’s an incredible community but it needs the retail.”

Brooklyn is also now on the radar of many international tenants. “It is less touristy and more ‘New Yorkery’ than Manhattan, which they feel has too many tourists,” explained David LaPierre, executive vice president, CBRE. “We are working with a half a dozen brands that want to be there.”

.....Tourists and their free spending are also welcomed by retailers.

Thomas Durels, executive vice president and director of leasing for the Empire State Realty Trust says, “We are seeing a steady increase in the number of tourists and international shoppers that walk down Broadway from Times Square and are going to either Macy’s or the Empire State Building or both.” Over 100 million pedestrians a year pass through the W. 34th Street corridor.

Durels has three availabilities across W. 34th Street from the upcoming Amazon store, but is always picky about what is in the base of the world-renowned tower.

And 57th Street is another example of a market going through a major transformation, with several ultra-luxury residential towers entering the market, said Jeff Nero, principal and managing director of retail services at Avison Young.

...“There is a tremendous interest in 57th as the retailers recognize the changes that are coming, and that Nordstrom will be anchoring the corridor,” said Nero. “It will become a major draw.”

Hypothalamus Dec 9, 2014 7:13 AM

Quote:

By 2020, 30 percent of all retail sales will come from the millennials. “The millennials want to live in the city, and from a retail perspective, the millennials are our future,” Joanne Podell, vice chairman of retail services at Cushman & Wakefield, said at a recent Real Estate Board of New York luncheon where Riguardi and residential broker Diane Ramirez, CEO of Halstead, also spoke.


If it's hipster and chic, we'll be the first to buy it.

dropdeaded209 Dec 9, 2014 12:13 PM

i love how millenials are somehow simultaneously broke and crushed with student debt but also the target market for propping up nordstrom and nieman marcus by 2020...

antinimby Dec 9, 2014 1:55 PM

^ they're versatile.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.