http://skyscrapercenter.com/building...h-street/14269

http://i.imgur.com/HU49Elf.png

I love the fact alone that the roof height will be the tallest roof height stat of any project so far in the United States at 1,490 feet.

It may exceed 1,500' to the top of the parapet.

What if the ESB was destroyed on 9/11 instead of WTC? ( I shudder the thought ) Wood NYC have a 1,249 ft. Gentlemen's agreement? Or wood they include the transmitter's extra 204 feet & make it a 1,453 ft. limit? Like some 1 said earlier, I wood b the 1 to weld that used pogo stick 2 the spire. The 2 months in Rikers wood b worth it!

Hopefully, this keeps up...

We've seen these renderings a lot lately, but people can't seem to wrap their heads around the changes.

But here's a sweet and handy guide with those renders...



http://nypost.com/2014/11/22/how-new...-look-in-2018/

NYC’s skyline will be radically different in 2018


By Kate Briquelet
November 22, 2014


http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com...8&h=652&crop=1



https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...11/skyline.jpg





https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...skyline_11.jpg

Amazing! :cheers:

Looking forward to these skyline changes, thanks NYguy for the great info as always!

Nitpicking Alert: I don't see Girasole...

Awesome job! Whoever put the effort-kudos to him/her! And pretty soon these may be outdated if the plans for 31 west 57th and Roseland Ballroom (to name a few) go ahead ( even 56 Leonard is missing)

The folks at cityrealty.com did a good job putting those renders together, and yes, there are still quite a few towers missing (a lot of the Hudson Yards, Downtown towers like 101 Warren, 56 Leonard, Brooklyn's Domino and Greenpoint towers, the skyscraper boom in Long Island City, which isn't visible from that point, etc.)

As for the concern about the total number of ultra-luxury units dropping on the market, here's a look at the Nordstrom, and some of the other upcoming projects, and total units each will have via DOB permits...(also included is 432 Park for comparison)


NORDSTROM TOWER - 199


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333035/original.jpg


111 W. 57TH STREET - 55


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333036/original.jpg


432 PARK AVENUE - 104


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333037/original.jpg


TOWER VERRE - 180


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333038/original.jpg


220 CENTRAL PARK SOUTH - 173


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333039/original.jpg


101 MURRAY STREET - 139


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333040/original.jpg


520 PARK AVENUE - 39


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158333041/original.jpg

Lots of buildings are missing. It isn't some comprehensive list.

Yeah, some things are missing, mostly in the Hudson Yards, most of which we don't know what looks like anyway.

But it is a very comprehensive look at most of the skyline changers. We know the depictions are not 100%.

Some commentary on the graphic below...

https://www.facebook.com/NYPost/phot...levant_count=1



https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...11/skyline.jpg
http://nypost.com/2014/11/22/how-new...-look-in-2018/

^ I know we skyscraper fans have a different view and opinion on skyscrapers than the general public. But I just can't stand the comments saying "thin and ugly". Thin? I say finally some new peaks! Back to the roots! Have they never seen any pictures of the 1920/30s sykline? Chrysler, 40 Wall, 70 Pine (just to name a few) are thin and tall. And ugly? Of course that remains subjective. But towers like Tower Verre and 111 West will become one of the most beautiful buildings not only in New York, but in the world. Maybe people need to see proper renderings (or later the real thing) before judging too harshly.

I wish I could be teleported back to the 30's to see the skyline in its glory. What we are entering is the next phase of a great transformation. There will always be critics, but often once things start to go up, they are quickly shushed, and instead, fall in love. Remember how many forumers for example didn't like 432 Park Ave? And then.... once it started rising they began to love it. The same will occur with all of these supertalls. I am really looking forward to 111 W. 57th. Its so think that its incredible. Makes 432 Park Ave look bulky. It could be that overtime these towers grow on the population. At first change can be hard to accept, but overtime, there seems to be some sort of acceptance, and this grows to an enjoyment.

Some of these buildings will be making their presents felt well before 2018.

Few comments...NYC 2018

1 -Empire still owns the area around 34th St.

2 -I don't see 15 Penn going up anytime soon.

3- 1 WTC desperately needs a few bigger towers around it.. especially 2 WTC. It looks alone downtown.

4- 57th Street...Billions Row...INSANE!!

5- We need a Hudson Spire ...1,500ft or taller!!

6- Tower Verre, 1 Vanderbilt, 111 & 217 W 57, All Stern Buildings...can't wait!

7- Like NY Guy said...don't forget LIC, Greenpoint, Williamsburg and Downtown Brooklyn


NYC 2018....AWESOME!!!

Just think we already have a good amount of buildings done or under unconstruction.
All that's done so far is:
1WTC:tup:
4WTC:tup:
One57:tup:

Now under construction
432 Park (Although it's topped out):)
3 WTC:)
10 Hudson:)
30 Hudson:)
Nordstrom:)
Tower Verre(I think it's in prep):)
220 Central:)
56 Leonard:)
30 Park Place:)

2018 this cities going to be a forest of cranes:)
Not to mention Jersey City also has some possible proposals.

^ There are many more! (see my sig)

Well put. Change frightens people, but in the end it's inevitable. :yes:

Obviously not, with the hotel still standing in place. But 15 Penn Plaza was actually the first tower on the west side to get a signature tenant (though only briefly) and was moving forward to being built. We know what happened after that. The tower lost a little momentum when Vornado shelved it, but the only reason they brought it back is because of tenant interest. More on that discussion in the 15 Penn thread.


November 24, 2014


The Arts Students League in protected mode...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158348029/original.jpg

Crazy, i visited New York last spring and even now with 432 park it looks different, midtown will surly be a sight to see in a decade or so

^
Wow does that historic building next door have all that scaffolding built over it to protect it from falling debris and possible collapsing tower cranes?

Maybe for protection against the guy in a bathrobe across the street with a telescope spying on them; trying to steal their art ideas while making condescending remarks. :sly:

It's amazing how "commonplace" supertalls in NYC will become in the not too distant future. :cheers:

^ Over a century ago, it was NY alone that played this game with "tall" buildings, eventually leading to the supertall.

But today we can witness this game played all around the world, with towers being built taller and taller. The city may not "flirt" with the world's tallest title any longer, but the game of building high and higher is back. We get to witness what we probably never thought we would, the city in full "I can build taller than your tower" mode. And true, it may lessen the significance of the "supertall" on the skyline, but it's great to watch.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U0FjSuX9mM...600/1-Scan.jpg
http://blog.insidetheapple.net/2014_01_01_archive.html




You can read a little about that below...



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154387267/original.jpg

Brandon Nagle


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ahMA3_GT6L...0/IMG_2950.JPG

A decade ago there were only a few supertalls (300m+) in the world (27). Two decades ago in 1994 when I was a kid and my interest in skyscrapers was just getting started, there were 13. If you look at the completed or UC towers, right now there are at least 197 (rough count) skyscrapers 300m or taller. To me, "supertall" status means almost nothing anymore as far as height goes. Really to make a splash height wise a tower needs to be a megatall these days.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of these supertalls are great towers, I just dont oooh and aaah over them purely because they passed 300m anymore. 500m on the other hand... now that is something to be impressed by these days.

TLDR version: 500m is the new 300m.

I agree, but 500m is still pretty rare in the world these days outside of somewhere like China. In any case this building is likely to be about 500 meters to the roof (A little less)

To me these days a super tall is a building of at least 350 meters to the roof, perhaps 400, So NY will still have plenty.

Well, I disagree with that. There are a lot of supertalls being built around the world, but when you look at where most of them are being built, the supertall is still very impressive, as a lot of these places don't even have towers approaching that height, and suddenly there's a sueprtall to be reckoned with.

But for me, at a certain point, the growing height of the supertall becomes redundant, and doesn't make sense, especially from a "view" point of view (what exactly will you be looking at from 2,000 ft?)

And then, there are a few places (like NY), where the supertalls are being built in bigger numbers if not heights. These buildings will take on the characteristics of buildings like the Empire State and the WTC, being visible from many miles away and altering the skyline. The sheer impact of the numbers alone are such that even a 2,000 ft tower in Manhattan, while more visible than the others, won't have a much greater impact, though it would still be impressive. I still haven't adjusted to 432 Park on the skyline, how tall it is.

And my final point about the supertall, as a result of these towers being mostly identified with the "great" cities in the past, location sometimes makes them all the more impressive (Imagine placing one of the 2,000 ft towers in London for example). To me, towers like the Burj and coming Kingdom towers are impressive feats of construction and engineering, but beyond that, not so much. They could just as well be on the moon.

The Nordstrom tower, while it may not match the quality in design of buildings like the Tower Verre, or 111 W. 57th St (from what we've seen so far), will still be a commanding tower in Manhattan. The result will be an exciting skyline, more so than we or anyone else has witnessed it before.

Location is what its about. Here, supertalls are being built amongst a sea of towers. A lot of the megatalls are isolated; often built on megablocks that are devoid of an urban feeling with the surrounding landscape having much shorter towers. It doesn't look good. Sure a 2000 foot tower in China is awesome, but if its built in a field next to a bunch of four story homes (check the China supertall thread in SSC to know what I mean), it looks terrible and very dystopian. I'll take an NYC supertall anyday then a megatall built in a field or desert with nothing around it. How it's integrated into the urban fabric is key. Plus, a megatall has the potential to ruin a skyline when the nearest structure is a 1000+ feet shorter. I personally would rather have a gradual progression so that aesthetics is preserved and that's just whats occuring. With the progression of 400m towers in Midtown, a 600m would begin to look good instead of sticking out obnoxiously. Thats down the line for now. So in summary, while a megatall can be nice, there needs to be some sort of balance in order to preserve such an iconic skyline.

It's impressive in terms of rarity, but it's pretty counterproductive in terms of the original point of skyscrapers (fitting more floorspace into a given lot). When these buildings get so tall that over half of each floor is just columns and elevators then it stops making any sort of economic sense and is purely for showmanship. To some they might be impressive in terms of height, but to me they are just impressive in terms of wasted money. I think more reasonable tower shapes like 10 and 30 Hudson Yards are much more impressive than simply going for height with no regard to proportion or economics.

9 - 432 Park Ave just lookin like the long brick from tetris
24 -111 W. 57th Street is even more extreme


Really nice are 11, 27,29 - Hudson Yards with the highline around. beautiful.
The Highline was very nice in summer 14, as I have been there.

Wait, did you just say that New York builds those residential supertall for show? And not on demand / economics? :koko:

I don't follow your logic. The exact reason these "sliver" towers are so tall is because of the small lots they are building on, with additional (or purchased) floor space. Sure, the towers don't have to be as tall, but there would be less floor space. Secondly, what further drives the height is the cost of purchasing and building on the land - those high units justify that expense. These towers are in fact pushing the idea of skyscrapers to its very limits. Some may see them as being too tall, but that's what it's all about.

Just saying...but if the '(Du)Bai and the '(Shang)Hai---amongst others from the Fertile Crescent to the Sea of Japan---had been following the above logic all along, they wouldn't get laughed out of the room by us here and some of the more *sensible European metropolises.
The relevance of the above IMO to this topic is that we're doing it right; and the fact that international financeers will flock stateside in only bigger droves seems to prove that.
*Sensible vis a vis reading the appropriate market tea leaves and proceeding accordingly; my "Field of Dreams in Reverse": Come and They Will Build It.".

With foundation work now being done, can we assume the design is now frozen?

For the most part, we can assume so. Renders will be revealed in the coming months. It's possible, though probably not likely, for some minor changes. The top floors of 432 Park were altered while the tower was already rising into the sky, but you wouldn't notice it from the design. Still, tweaks can always be made, with the changes reflected in the filing with the DOB that will continue until construction is completed.

I guess the only question now is whether the 1490' number is the physical roof height or the parapet/curtain wall height...

Hopefully the answer is sooner rather than later.


Latest permit...(ignore the 1,550 ft height)


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

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...ordstrom-2.jpg

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...ordstrom-1.jpg
Credit: 217 West 57th Street, photo by ILNY ; http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/12/cco...-december.html

^ Looks like excavation is leveling out. You can already feel a difference since these videos were taken...


• Video Link



• Video Link

^^Whoa, that excavator- top left corner. Pure American ingenuity. :yes:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3...5-no/NYC21.jpg

The CTBUH has to get their numbers updated, but here's an idea how the tallest rankings here in the US will stand with Nordstrom and some of the others...



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158416311/original.jpg



If you include towers that are proposed, or in site prep status...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158416313/original.jpg



Nordstrom moves to the top of the list of proposed and under construction projects in the US...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/158416314/original.jpg

^^^

Was playing around with the data over there. For structures 150m or greater that are proposed, demo, u/c, topped out and complete. This is what I found.

Note: Some are missing as stated by the CTBUH disclaimer but gives us a good idea.

============= Scroll ============>
http://virtual-host-discourse.global...3b2acc15a.jpeg

We are clearly in an unprecedented time for skyscraper construction in NYC.

And everyone can and should take it all in. Twenty years from now, we'll look back and remember when each and everyone of these babies grew out of the ground.

Does anyone have a proper updated render for this building...I still can't get an idea of what it's actually going to look like..

That's because renderings haven't been released. We're all waiting.

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.

As the height of a building increases the available floorspace per floor decreases because more and more of it is being used for elevator shafts and structural supports (core and columns). It gets to the point where each additional floor you are adding is essentially having almost no increase in floor space because the in incremental increases are offset by the decreases in all the floors below it. What limits the height of a skyscraper isn't civil engineering challenges, it's logistics (how do you get people in and out without the whole thing being nothing but elevators). These ultra-luxury towers solve that by having so few tenants that they don't need very many elevators, but that means absurd prices for the few who do live there. It's getting to the point where future skyscrapers may well have the bottom 400ft be "stilts" to get them up into the skyline without having to have people from those floors clogging up the elevators for the mega-wealthy.

Its called Economics. The city builds based on supply and demand and prices are a function of this, and current property costs. Remember, these towers are for profit. All towers are. They aren't built without a good reason. Always has. Pick yourself up one of these books and try to comprehend...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...4,203,200_.jpg

Once that is finished, I can recommend a more advanced textbook. Common BrownTown, you're starting to sound like a NIMBY that doesn't understand how cities work.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The towers going up in NYC are strictly based on market demand. It has nothing to do with "show"; in fact these buildings are very difficult to build, due to tough zoning, NIMBY opposition, absurd union rules and the nation's highest mansion and transfer taxes.

As for "efficient" the most efficient residence is the one most reflective of market demand. Obviously these buildings are being built as efficient as possible, because the developer is strictly motivated by profit. The relative success of the building determines the building's value, and benefit to the city.

Gee, you came up with that all by yourself? Who knew that tall buildings had elevators, and elevator capacity was related to building height? :shrug:

You forgot the little part about not all real estate being created equal. If a ground floor residece is X, A 90th floor residence overlooking Central Park will be sold for 5X or 10X. So obviously the math works out, unless the usable floorspace becomes absurdly tiny. If the math didn't work out, then developers wouldn't be building tall skinny towers, which are much more expensive to build than "regular" highrises.

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!

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.