SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

tennis1400 Apr 23, 2015 12:25 AM

I still don't understand the gentleman's agreement on the height being below 1776. Who exactly do they think will be offended by going higher? Besides, the building sits on higher land than the Freedom Tower, so from most vantages it will appear higher. Seems pretty silly to me. Regardless, I like how this is shaping up.

Zapatan Apr 23, 2015 1:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis1400 (Post 7000662)
I still don't understand the gentleman's agreement on the height being below 1776. Who exactly do they think will be offended by going higher? Besides, the building sits on higher land than the Freedom Tower, so from most vantages it will appear higher. Seems pretty silly to me. Regardless, I like how this is shaping up.

Well welcome to the USA where things make no sense whatsoever. :tup:

Crawford Apr 23, 2015 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis1400 (Post 7000662)
I still don't understand the gentleman's agreement on the height being below 1776.

There is no "gentlemans agreement".

Just because nothing has been announced higher in the 12 months or so 1 WTC has been completed does not mean that nothing will built higher.

It would actually be pretty unusual for a city to have a "new highest" and then a bunch of taller buildings immediately announced.

jsr Apr 23, 2015 1:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis1400 (Post 7000662)
I still don't understand the gentleman's agreement on the height being below 1776. Who exactly do they think will be offended by going higher? Besides, the building sits on higher land than the Freedom Tower, so from most vantages it will appear higher. Seems pretty silly to me. Regardless, I like how this is shaping up.

Making a big deal over whether one tall building is taller than another is itself pretty silly and meaningless...

JR Ewing Apr 26, 2015 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6998243)

Only in New York, lads! That's why it's called, "The City!" :cheers: :cheers::cheers:

Zapatan Apr 26, 2015 7:13 PM

Stunning!

chris08876 Apr 26, 2015 7:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR Ewing (Post 7004762)
Only in New York, lads! That's why it's called, "The City!" :cheers: :cheers::cheers:

And they said after 9/11 that skyscrapers where dead. The city has proven itself that nothing can stop it! We can weather anything. Recession, please? We just continue to rock.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/ca3c1ae64...lfp4o2_500.gif

Thats just America though. Sure we have our problems, but we bounce back stronger than ever. This decade is witnessing the greatest skyscraper boom since the 20's.

Biggest challenge for the city is housing and affordability. Better deals, more housing, and they will come. This is like Mecca for young people. They all want to be here, but some don't want to admit it. Closet NY lovers.

#pride

Zapatan Apr 26, 2015 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7004811)
And they said after 9/11 that skyscrapers where dead. The city has proven itself that nothing can stop it! We can weather anything. Recession, please? We just continue to rock.

Thats just America though. Sure we have our problems, but we bounce back stronger than ever. This decade is witnessing the greatest skyscraper boom since the 20's.

Biggest challenge for the city is housing and affordability. Better deals, more housing, and they will come. This is like Mecca for young people. They all want to be here, but some don't want to admit it. Closet NY lovers.

#pride

I know it's great isn't it? This is quite the resilient country. I too remember seeing all of the "NY and the US will never build over 900' again posts". :haha:

Now it's not only NY but the whole USA, there's an 1070 foot building going up in SF right now, that's definitely a sign that we are in the process of getting our skyscraper game back on. :cheers:

BrownTown Apr 27, 2015 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 7004898)
I know it's great isn't it? This is quite the resilient country. I too remember seeing all of the "NY and the US will never build over 900' again posts". :haha:

As nice as it is for Skyscraper geeks to watch the fact of the matter is that it's happening for all the wrong reasons. It's massive income inequality that is fueling the construction of all these supertall residential towers. Supertall skyscrapers have always been and continue to be the product of massive wealth concentrated in a tiny number of hands (such as now and in the late 20s) or in other places like China and the Middle East.

Skyguy_7 Apr 27, 2015 12:41 PM

^Ha, liberal thinking at its best, err worst.. so called "income inequality" is not the reason for this boom. Free-market economics is. Strong demand, for what little land remains, is pushing these buildings taller and taller. That demand, along with the wealth behind it, is fueling tens of thousands of high-skilled jobs, which are then generating indirect demand for jobs like burger flippers, tool forgers, boot repair, etc etc. What's there to complain about? Besides, this is America; it ain't easy, but the condos, apartments and office space in these buildings are attainable to ANYONE who has the will power to earn it.

chris08876 Apr 27, 2015 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7005371)
That demand, along with the wealth behind it, is fueling tens of thousands of high-skilled jobs, which are then generating indirect demand for jobs like burger flippers, tool forgers, boot repair, etc etc. What's there to complain about? Besides, this is America; it ain't easy, but the condos, apartments and office space in these buildings are attainable to ANYONE who has the will power to earn it.

Well thats really what it is. The 57th towers probably not. I mean if you invent the new iphone then yea, but realistically, all of the condos/rentals are affordable in a sense going along the East River, JC, DoBro and so on. But they are targeted more for seasoned professional. People who are at the mid level of their careers making 80k or more. Its feasible, but people have to go out there and work for the jobs and titles where they make that money. This might sound classist when I say this, but even when it comes to couples, for a 2 bedroom, its doable, just pick a partner/wife that has a good career and thats intelligent. It could be done. NYC is expensive, but theres also the potential to make a lot of money in many fields. People just have to be wise with their decisions, and if they are young, focus on building a career SO then you can reach that level where money isn't a big issue, and start having fun. And save. Saving is very important. You;d be surprised how many don't save.

NYC like SF, is not friendly at all towards young people, but for career oriented residents, it is. Theres the potential to make lots of money, question is, will you put the effort in to stand amongst the competition?

sbarn Apr 27, 2015 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7005481)
NYC like SF, is not friendly at all towards young people, but for career oriented residents, it is. Theres the potential to make lots of money, question is, will you put the effort in to stand amongst the competition?

Not to steer off topic, but I completely disagree with this statement for both SF and NYC. Young people are flocking to both cities, they just find a way to make it work.

BrownTown Apr 27, 2015 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7005371)
^Ha, liberal thinking at its best, err worst.. so called "income inequality" is not the reason for this boom. Free-market economics is.

LOL, I think that's the first time I've ever been called a liberal in my entire life. It's just a fact what is driving demand. There is a growing gap between rich and poor which means the numbers of both rich AND poor are growing as the middle class is being destroyed. This means the demand for ultra-luxury developments is increasing because there are more super-wealthy, but it would be naive to think that is a good sign for the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7005371)
Strong demand, for what little land remains, is pushing these buildings taller and taller. That demand, along with the wealth behind it, is fueling tens of thousands of high-skilled jobs, which are then generating indirect demand for jobs like burger flippers, tool forgers, boot repair, etc etc.

It's not a lack of land that is driving demand since these supertalls have less than 100 residences in them and aren't even occupied half the time. It's height itself that is valuable, ostensibly due to better views, but more realistically due to dick measuring among the worlds elite. Your economic argument is what's known as the "broken window fallacy". Sure the buildings cost a lot of money and that money is spent somewhere, BUT the money is being spent incredibly inefficiently and therefore is mostly wasted. The opportunity costs of spending a billion dollars on a building to house only a few people is staggering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 7005371)
What's there to complain about? Besides, this is America; it ain't easy, but the condos, apartments and office space in these buildings are attainable to ANYONE who has the will power to earn it.

Statistically speaking they would be more likely to get struck by lightning than to live in these towers. Nobody is saying they can't build them, only that it's a sign of an economy headed towards trouble.

buildup Apr 28, 2015 10:35 PM

I would add it isn't just America's super-rich it is the world's super-rich. They all need a place to stay when in New York. And London. And Singapore. etc.

And being from Philly, don't let a "gentlemens agreement take hold!!! It stifled Philly for 86 years.

JR Ewing Apr 29, 2015 2:34 AM

They're saying on SSP that some big surprises will be revealed soon! :cheers::cheers:

I guess that its roof might exceed 1,500'!

chris08876 Apr 29, 2015 3:00 AM

New roof height and the same spire to eclipse WTC1. I have a feeling of a new tallest soon. :eeekk:

This sounds all calculated. Now that the major hurdles are done with, tower is u/c, would be a good time for Barnett to show his true intentions jr ewing. ;)

gramsjdg Apr 29, 2015 3:46 AM

Yessir! Without reading too much into it, sounds like Otie, who provided us with the official architectural diagrams and extrapolated renders from last summer/fall, is hinting at increased roof/parapet height (higher than the current 1490'/1493') and the possibly of a new (official) tallest (U.S.) by both roof and spire- with details to be released soon...:yes:

Zapatan Apr 29, 2015 3:53 AM

NY deserves 1500+ feet and a pinnacle higher than the harpoon on 1WTC. :)

gramsjdg Apr 29, 2015 4:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 7007972)
NY deserves 1500+ feet and a pinnacle higher than the harpoon on 1WTC. :)

...ain't that the truth.

I think we can ignore the recent low-rez un-"official" render...

babybackribs2314 Apr 29, 2015 5:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7007992)
...ain't that the truth.

I think we can ignore the recent low-rez un-"official" render...

That rendering was produced by AS + GG. But you can ignore it if you want, I mean some people don't believe in evolution either.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:32 AM.

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