It is conceptual. But yeah, no need for you to check back on this thread for a while.


Yes, the would like to bring more attention to this property (why wouldn't they?), even though it is in the Hudson Yards area that is already hot on the map for development. The only thing it would do more than otherwise, the plan is particularly geared for the supertall community, someone who could build this tower in particular. Of course it won't be the same exact building - it's conceptual.

But I don't see what you're so twisted up about. It's a plan (that's evolving), but not a proposal at this point, which is why we haven't changed the information in the thread.


http://www.property-report.com/mjma-...st-tower-33562


When they get a buyer, we'll see where it goes from there. In the meantime...

To correct the title : 110 floors and 1800 foot. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11578927.htm

More of the same...


http://www.constructiondive.com/news...in-nyc/231885/

Fight for nation's tallest tower in NYC

By Ron Gallagher
February 25, 2014

^ 1 WTC has 104 stories and top floor is at 1268 ft and 1800 ft tower will "only" have 6 more stories? How tall the strories will be?

The magic of ceiling heights. The Nordstrom tower was supposed to be 1,550 ft with just 88 floors. We really can't judge tower heights based on floor counts anymore. The Freedom Tower doesn't really have 104 floors btw.

1 WTC has 85 floors and Hudson Spire will have 110 REAL FLOORS !!!!!

P.S. To change the title please ( 1800 foot / 110 floors ).:tup:

New York YIMBY:

New Rendering: Hudson Spire
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON MARCH 6TH 2014 AT 6:00 AM

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...dsonspire3.jpg
Hudson Spire + The Hudson Yards -- image originally from Related

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...dsonspire1.jpg

Not a fan of that, especially since it takes all the attention away from 30 Hudson yards due to just sheer size. I say this trades places with tower verre.

Okay.
1. Can we *please* stop calling this overdone-motif slant-roofed, plain relective-glass, Manute Bol-sized version of the RCA/GE Building with a drinking straw plunged on tip a spire?
2. Why is fan-art, i.e. what this render essentially is, beating to the punch the putative architects of record for this thing in an e-journal of otensibly decent reputation??

If you're gonna call it a *spire*, make sure you know thoroughly the meaning of what you wish to build. If you want a *slab n' a straw*, well.........

I used to draw 100x better buildings in 8th grade art class freehand.

30 Hudson Yards will be in a forest of tall buildings anyway, it's not going to stand out like you think it will. What ultimately gets built on the site won't be the rendering of the tower we have all seen. But if you want to see something truly stand out in the Hudson Yards, it will have to be a tower as tall.

A) there are no real architects of record, because the tower isn't even an actual proposal, and MJM + A is hardly a firm
B) the 'architects of record' have crap renderings, and the 'fan-art' -- which it IS called in the post -- is significantly better than anything released by Massey Knakal so far
C) if you're going to criticize YIMBY you should spell 'ostensibly' correctly

I concede points A and B, since I haven't had quite that much time to sit and digest all the minutiae relative to these threads over the past 7 months plus, what with radically adjusting to new living situations since January...plus all the other almost once-a-week shitstorms my father bequeathed to me and my family literally since the day of his passing in July. :(

Okay...C happened because the I missed the S key first time around and I got detained before I could proofread. :cool:

I totally thought it was when I first opened the thread but I guess for the time being it's too good to be true.

But then again all of the 350-400+meter buildings going up in NY now would have been thought to be too good to be true in the past and they're becoming a reality. So you never know, maybe someday NYC will see something like this. :yes:

True. I wonder where they got that number from. It didn't include the air rights from the other property owners, did it? Also I was wondering if it would be a good idea to build on landfill..

Well, said building would be very skinny judging from renderings. I think the 1800' could be to the top of a spire. if it were as skinny as Nordstrom or even skinnier it could rise to 1400' occupied portion with a crown to 1550 or so and then a 250 foot spire.

A lot of the pictures make it look like it's something like that.

Again, you are going way overboard with the personal criticism. They are a firm that was hired to do the job. It is a conceptual rendering of the tower that could be built.

As far as the tower being thin, it wasn't too long ago many would have laughed at the idea of towers like 432 Park and 111 W. 57th being built, and yet here they are.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154740760/medium.jpg



If it doesn't interest you, or you don't think it could be built, that's fine. You don't have to participate in the convo, but I would lay off the personal attacks.

Please direct me to where I made a personal attack or criticized anyone in particular; JayPro attacked MY credibility, all I said was that there are no real plans. If you can find a website for MJM + A, please direct me to it, because they definitely don't have one -- and MK simply 'commissioned' them for marketing purposes. I would know, as I am in the loop.

This is seriously ridiculous; see JayPro's attack on YIMBY/me. And then *I* get chastised for a rebuttal that was anything but offensive?

"2. Why is fan-art, i.e. what this render essentially is, beating to the punch the putative architects of record for this thing in an e-journal of otensibly decent reputation??"

There should have never been a problem in the first place with fan-art in a skyscraper website made for skyscraper FANS. Keep up the great coverage babyback! Lets stay chill now pretty please...everyone.

My piece:
It would appear to me that where I apparently overstepped a line and raised a hackle or three is where I used a certain adjective to apparently chuck rocks at *one part of an article* in a larger publication.
Admittedly, if I had followed *every singly bleeding detail* of this thread--but alas *not* because of the personal hardships aformentioned--I would have gladl--and long since--repented of/recanted/recasted/recouched things justifiably percieved as wrong or ad hominem.
I should like to think that after an admittedly scant 800 posts of mostly articulate observations in this field, I've tried to help keep the level of discourse marginally civil for everyone here.
At the same time, though, I'm not inclined to let anyone convince me that what I strenuously insist is an accidental misreading of the YIMBY article here discussed is in any way malicious.
Any slight or offense meant or taken I leave to the rest of you to decide. I meant none and I have more important things in life to consider than to take any.
Piece said.

No offense taken, thank you for clearing that up. All good. :)