SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT

Viewing Page 172 of 407

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 7109492)

Anyone who does not appreciate tall skyscrapers in America's largest city should move across the river to NJ. :hell:
All that talk about shadows is absolute B.S.

Let me tell you something, I can stand on the corner of 34th and 5th and enjoy sunshine on the street directly in front of The Empire State Building!!

If you're afraid of your own shadow, move to New Jersey!! :runaway:

One thing that really irks me is when someone forces their opinion down my throat!

This is a free country and if you don't like skyscrapers, move out!! :koko:

Agreed, because NJ has no towers? Seriously, I get your argument for making someone against development. However, in Jersey City there is a sky scraper boom including two proposed supertalls. That area will have a larger, taller skyline than Brooklyn or Queens in a few years. Maybe a move to Conn would be more accurate?

:goodpost: I hope you know I didn't mean Jersey City! ;)

Let's trade. NY will adopt Jersey City and Staten Island can go to NJ - deal? :lmao:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown (Post 7109598)

If I had called someone an idiot you would have deleted my post and given me a warning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 7109704)

He wasnt refering to another user. Thats the only reason he would warn you about behavior.

Or maybe JACKinBeantown is secretly Meaghan Baron...I've never seen the two together....:hmmm:

Anyway, New York is not under assault from supertall buildings. The only thing under assault is our ability to document and photograph the rise of all these buildings. I'm feeling a little thin already, and the real fun hasn't even started yet. It's a problem I'm glad to have.

I see four distinct clusters (in Manhattan). There's the Hudson Yards district, Lower Manhattan, the "billionaire's row" towers, and the coming midtown-east (which hasn't initiated yet). Covering anyone of those areas is enough for a day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7110221)

I see four distinct clusters (in Manhattan). There's the Hudson Yards district, Lower Manhattan, the "billionaire's row" towers, and the coming midtown-east (which hasn't initiated yet). Covering anyone of those areas is enough for a day.

I see a good itinerary out of that. A nice day with fine weather, a camera, and that's all one needs. Could be a good photo thread. "Skyline Clusters"

Although the real challenge is covering ALL of them, and even JC, because JC needs love too.

:iagree: Jersey City is as integral to New York as you can get!
In fact, the growing skyline across the Hudson is a compliment to Manhattan in itself. :yes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscrapersofnewyork (Post 7109704)

he wasnt refering to another user. Thats the only reason he would warn you about behavior.

lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 7110786)

:iagree: Jersey City is as integral to New York as you can get!
In fact, the growing skyline across the Hudson is a compliment to Manhattan in itself. :yes:

I agree. JC, Brooklyn, and LIC are integral parts of the NY skyline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR Ewing (Post 7100660)

I'd like to see Tishman crack 1,600'.

They need to break the height barrier already. It's about time New York gets a tower close to 2,000 feet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 7111168)

They need to break the height barrier already. It's about time New York gets a tower close to 2,000 feet.

I honestly don't see that happening any time soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 7111168)

They need to break the height barrier already. It's about time New York gets a tower close to 2,000 feet.

:goodpost: Agreed 100%

However, there is great concern.
We want to develop those towers in an area ripe for that growth.
Say, the West side or (dare I say) Downtown.
Yep, you heard that right.

It's not uncommon to reach for the sky, where in NY, the sky's the limit! :tup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7110653)

Although the real challenge is covering ALL of them, and even JC, because JC needs love too.

As does Brooklyn and Queens. Manhattan is challenging enough, but those extra clusters will require extra effort (that's a hint for you guys).

Meanwhile, the towers along billionaires row are beginning their ascent to and above street level, so covering them will be easier from here on out. Remember when 432 was barely a hole in the ground? The Freedom Tower another hole in the ground? These towers will be up before you know it.

:previous: As we celebrate the growth of the city's tallest, another major celebration is happening on the West Side as well.

While I agree with with chris08876 regarding Jersey City development, I will be celebrating the day when Jersey City officially becomes New York's 6th borough complete with MTA mass transit. :fingerscrossed:

JC already has the PATH. I want to see a 7 connection to Seacaucus, together with the demolition of the PA on 42nd St.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...f-central-park

Key City Council members want to curb super-tall buildings south of Central Park
Lawmakers call for more regulation and a close look at height limits in a big portion of midtown Manhattan.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pb...creen&maxw=770

By Joe Anuta
July 28, 2015

Quote:

A number of local elected officials who hold sway over zoning laws sent a letter to the Department of City Planning last week urging it to rein in the tide of new tall buildings south of Central Park.

"We write to voice our concern about the impacts of as-of-right super-tall buildings in the 57th Street corridor below Central Park and its environs," wrote seven lawmakers, including City Council members Dan Garodnick, Corey Johnson and Mark Levine, in a July 23 letter to Carl Weisbrod, who heads City Planning. "We ask for your assistance in mitigating the proliferation of these buildings."

The officials urged City Planning to implement the recommendations of Manhattan's Community Board 5, which covers most of midtown. They specifically highlighted proposals that would, for example, require a study of shadows on Central Park and its effect on the community. Another proposal suggested developers be required to disclose more information when it comes to buying unused air rights from other buildings on a block in an effort to boost the size of their project.

Nearly all the existing and proposed towers in question—including Extell Development's One57 and JDS Property Group and Property Markets Group's Steinway Tower—have bought nearby air rights. In those cases, architects have rearranged square footage already allocated for a particular block, a process that does not require any public review.

Community Board 5 has also advocated for a long-term height cap, along with a temporary moratorium on the new construction of towers topping 600 feet in the area south of Central Park.

Messrs. Garodnick and Johnson both represent portions of the affected area of midtown Manhattan, between Fifth and Eighth avenues to the East and West, and Central Park South and 53rd Street to the north and south—while Mr. Levine represents upper Manhattan stretching north from the Upper West Side.

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who provides an advisory opinion on all land-use proposals in the district, also signed the letter. Ms. Brewer has a reputation for checking development across the city.

"This strong letter by our elected officials is a decisive step toward much needed land-use and zoning reform to address megatowers' impacts," said the Central Park Sunshine Task Force, created by Community Board 5, in a statement.

Additionally, the officials asked City Planning to consider the recommendations of a separate group called the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development, which proposes even stricter requirements for new developments near Central Park. That group is circulating a petition that calls for lengthy environmental-impact studies for any building topping 25 stories, as well as height limits and a prohibition of new buildings that would cast a shadow into a park.

Suggesting height limitations in some of the densest districts in the city may not be well received by the de Blasio administration, which has noted that New York needs to build many more apartment buildings to accommodate its growing population. With land in the city scarce, the mayor's office has noted, up is often the only way to go.

Although a neighborhood-wide zoning change would likely be advanced by City Planning, the City Council would have the final say over any proposal.

The idiots don't realize that it's the limited supply of available sites and air rights that will naturally curb any such buildings.

These people need to be publicly lashed in Herald Square for their crimes against architecture and city growth. I doubt they will succeed. Similar to the UES citizens and council members trying to limit tall residentials there.

^ I don't think they will suceed either, particularly with de Blasio. Everything being built is being built as of right. They want the ability to have a lengthy "study" and review process, enough time to kill a project.

http://www.6sqft.com/wp-content/uplo...h-render-2.jpg

http://www.6sqft.com/construction-up...-into-the-sky/

http://www.6sqft.com/wp-content/uplo...uth-render.jpg

:goodpost: I agree!
Lengthy studies only waste valuable time.
As everyone knows, time is money (especially in NYC).

:previous: A lengthy study is an excuse to halt development.
It is no different than a transit strike, holding the city hostage.

But using 25 stories as a measurement is an excuse to discriminate skyscrapers from being built in NYC.

How were those folks elected?
Can they be removed from their positions?

I don't think this whining will gain traction at all. Young people want to live and work where the action is and high density is viewed favorably as an attribute of the ideal modern city. This is 2015, not 1977.

Also do not these whiners ever look up at the sky to see the position of the sun? Hint, hint, developers building SOUTH of Central Park =shadows of buildings don't fall on the park.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/esm/shadows

And like another poster mentioned re: the opposition to the height of the condos built adjacent to Brooklyn Bridge Park. They ended up getting a shorter, FATTER building that blocks MORE of the view of the Brooklyn Bridge than a skinnier taller building would. Ooops!

Viewing Page 172 of 407