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)

Crawford Jul 10, 2014 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6648051)
Wow! I'm glad that this tower is going to be the tallest of the 57th street towers and it won't be just a box. I look forward to seeing the impact it will have on the skyline.

It's the tallest of the announced 57th Street towers. There's more to come.

chris08876 Jul 10, 2014 12:34 AM

Stern hinted in his interview that he plans the acquisition of various sites in Brooklyn in which he will announce in the weeks to come. This could yield many large towers. Maybe not supertalls, but something large. I could be wrong though, for all we know, it could be something over a 1000 ft.

JayPro Jul 10, 2014 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6648211)
It's the tallest of the announced 57th Street towers. There's more to come.

Tthe Park Lane hotel, which is an absolute eyesore from the '70's and totally expendable at this point, is set to be demolished for a tower at the very least in the 900' range.

Onn Jul 10, 2014 2:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6648121)
Another scoop by YIMBY:

If another tower indeed breaks the 1,776 foot mark, I'll be in skyscraper heaven. Hopefully the roof is over 1,640ft/500m.

:)

PS: my guess is Wanda or Shvo.

I would start to temper my expectations for further taller towers. This boom seems to be quickly entering the bubble stage.

JayPro Jul 10, 2014 2:06 AM

What do you see as indicators of that?
A bubble in this context as Inunderstand it is fueled by speculation and enthusiasm according to the Greenspanian definition of the term. What we're seeing is based on the self-perpetuating cycle of genuine demand and resultant ncreases in value.

Maybe this bubble might come about as a result of the demand from the upscale end of the spectrum starting to outpace the ability to supply it.

Michael12374 Jul 10, 2014 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6648356)
I would start to temper my expectations for further taller towers. This boom seems to be quickly entering the bubble stage.

I dont think quite yet. Compared to the activity in China and the middle east, this isnt big. But I think if 3 or more new supertalls are announced by the end of the year, and if at least 3 of the current supertall proposals have begun construction, then thats when I think the bubble stage kicks in. But better to have a bubble then to have no activity at all.

chris08876 Jul 10, 2014 2:16 AM

The difference in this city is that all of these developments are sustainable. There is a strong demand for them, low vacancy overall, and housing is doing well. There will be no bubble for a long time. Development is not at a magnitude that occurs in China where a lot of those projects sit empty. Some Chinese cities have 40%> vacancy rate. Not the top tier, but they are out there. NYC is doing fine.

Michael12374 Jul 10, 2014 2:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6648380)
The difference in this city is that all of these developments are sustainable. There is a strong demand for them, low vacancy overall, and housing is doing well. There will be no bubble for a long time. Development is not at a magnitude that occurs in China where a lot of those projects sit empty. Some Chinese cities have 40%> vacancy rate. Not the top tier, but they are out there. NYC is doing fine.

I think "fine" is a bit of an understatement

Zapatan Jul 10, 2014 2:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael12374 (Post 6648369)
I dont think quite yet. Compared to the activity in China and the middle east, this isnt big. But I think if 3 or more new supertalls are announced by the end of the year, and if at least 3 of the current supertall proposals have begun construction, then thats when I think the bubble stage kicks in. But better to have a bubble then to have no activity at all.

Nice how you compared the worlds largest country and an entire (sub) continent to one city.

China and the Middle east vs. NYC is kind of unfair. Individual cities in China and the Middle east compared to NY, much more fair.

Michael12374 Jul 10, 2014 2:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6648397)
Nice how you compared the worlds largest country and an entire (sub) continent to one city.

China and the Middle east vs. NYC is kind of unfair. Individual cities in China and the Middle east compared to NY, much more fair.

I just compared any Chinese city to NYC saying how all of them are booming right now. I guess the middle east comparison was a little unfair.

Crawford Jul 10, 2014 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael12374 (Post 6648401)
I just compared any Chinese city to NYC saying how all of them are booming right now. I guess the middle east comparison was a little unfair.

No Chinese city is building more skyscrapers than NYC.

China isn't really booming right now in terms of real estate market, BTW. The Chinese market is pretty bad right now, but there are still tons of projects under construction, simply because they were already financed, and because it isn't really a "market" economy.

wilfredo267 Jul 10, 2014 2:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6648380)
The difference in this city is that all of these developments are sustainable. There is a strong demand for them, low vacancy overall, and housing is doing well. There will be no bubble for a long time. Development is not at a magnitude that occurs in China where a lot of those projects sit empty. Some Chinese cities have 40%> vacancy rate. Not the top tier, but they are out there. NYC is doing fine.

Also the difference which was pointed out by Stern recently was that these new supertalls do not have alot of units. Although almost 1,400 feet tall 111 will only have 61 units for example.

forj Jul 10, 2014 3:21 AM

from DannyR2713 at SSC.. and looks pretty accurate. HOLY crap!

http://i.imgur.com/2TVI72x.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bQr5m1l.jpg

honestly, seeing this just makes me want to see one or two more supertalls inbetween all these to fill out the area. it will eventually happen. the fact that what you see above is actually going to be built in the next few years is INSANE.

aquablue Jul 10, 2014 3:32 AM

delete.

Onn Jul 10, 2014 3:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6648363)
What do you see as indicators of that?
A bubble in this context as Inunderstand it is fueled by speculation and enthusiasm according to the Greenspanian definition of the term. What we're seeing is based on the self-perpetuating cycle of genuine demand and resultant ncreases in value.

Maybe this bubble might come about as a result of the demand from the upscale end of the spectrum starting to outpace the ability to supply it.

Because there is a mass number of new high end developments being announced with current high end developments not fully sold out yet. Its supply and demand. You honestly don't think all of these new developments are going to get built do you? This New York skyscraper boom is already going to leave virtually all others skyscraper booms in the US in the dust.

forj Jul 10, 2014 3:47 AM

the demand is there. there has been no lack of interest in the units of 432 park or One57. plenty of buyers and the most expensive units are already sold. as long as the income gap continues to increase and we have more and more millionaires and billionaires you will get your supertalls. i am fairly certain eveything you see in the above images will be built. maybe not anything after that. but Nordstrom, Steinway, Torre Verre.. they are too far along and nothing is stopping thee now. if there is a bubble, it is a long ways from bursting

Onn Jul 10, 2014 3:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6648380)
The difference in this city is that all of these developments are sustainable. There is a strong demand for them, low vacancy overall, and housing is doing well. There will be no bubble for a long time. Development is not at a magnitude that occurs in China where a lot of those projects sit empty. Some Chinese cities have 40%> vacancy rate. Not the top tier, but they are out there. NYC is doing fine.

Just like the Internet boom was "fine" and the 2007 housing bubble was "fine" and the 1929 stock market was "fine". If the economy goes down so will this development cycle. You get my point. ;)

Quote:

the demand is there. there has been no lack of interest in the units of 432 park or One57. plenty of buyers and the most expensive units are already sold. as long as the income gap continues to increase and we have more and more millionaires and billionaires you will get your supertalls. i am fairly certain eveything you see in the above images will be built. maybe not anything after that. but Nordstrom, Steinway, Torre Verre.. they are too far along and nothing is stopping thee now. if there is a bubble, it is a long ways from bursting
The income gap will continue to increase and New York will continue to do well, but its not going to change over night. There will be bumps along the way.

aquablue Jul 10, 2014 4:31 AM

DEL! Goodbye!

Perklol Jul 10, 2014 5:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6648488)
This New York skyscraper boom is already going to leave virtually all others skyscraper booms in the US in the dust.

Sorry I'm a bit confused. Are you referring to ultra luxury housing or the rentals/condo market?

M. Incandenza Jul 10, 2014 5:34 AM

On the economics of these superlux supertalls... As someone said upthread, the numbers of units here are not that significant - 60 here, 100 there, so even though these buildings are very prominent, the size of the market for them shouldn't be much of a constraint, especially since that market is an increasingly global one. And extremely wealthy people are living somewhere in NYC already, even though these supertalls haven't been built yet. So it seems to me that all that's happened is some combination of two factors: 1) the extremely rich are that much more extremely rich that these supertall projects are cost-effective for the developers; and b) the technology has improved enough to make these projects cost-effective for the developers.

Regardless, I don't see much reason that the trend couldn't continue indefinitely; even the fairly massive recession of 2008 only caused a decline in wealth at the top of the income scale for a couple of years, and it's already back at record highs.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:52 AM.

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