NEW YORK | 80 South Street | 1,436 FT | 113 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

Good to hear news on this.

Originally Posted by Sky88

Oh, finally some good news for this almost forgotten project. Hopefully someone will make this...

I wouldn't be surprised if the design changed but I sure hope it's cool regardless.

What's the approved envelope for the site? I hope we get something at least 12-1,300 feet even if they don't go full ~1,500.

Imagine the views from a condo higher than 1WTC's observatory.

[mrnyc]

nice to see the site is back on the market with the rates down.

i still say it will eventually end up a pair of anonymous apt buildings.

[SamLYNY]

Good news!

Interested to see what happens here...especially waiting to see how a refreshed development might be affected - if at all - by the 1 seaport shitshow across the street.

[Busy Bee]

Totally unpopular opinion but for the sake of Lower Manhattan skyline "balance", I hope whatever goes up here is no taller than around 800'. I think having something supertall right on the waterline like that and not stepped back with other buildings like you'd have at an inland location is unappealing to me. Visually unflattering. Not ideal. Look at One Manhattan Square. Can you imagine something 2/3 again as tall? I think it would look terribly awkward on the skyline once people saw it.

Alright, let me have it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i still say it will eventually end up a pair of anonymous apt buildings.

It'd be dumb to blow an opportunity like this, that being said I'll hope for the best prepare for the worst.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

nice to see the site is back on the market with the rates down.

i still say it will eventually end up a pair of anonymous apt buildings.

Not with that footprint, the costs, and the zoning for the site. There’s a reason all of the designs have been stacked that way.

Due to the C5-3, LM zoning, 80 South Street has a max FAR of 15 for either commercial or community facility uses. Of this FAR, up to 12 can be used for residential purposes, translating to a max ZFA of 220,770 square feet, with 176,616 square feet allocated for residential use.

Additionally, the sale includes approximately 189,734 ZFA of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) from neighboring lots and 407,280 South Street Seaport Development Rights (SDRs), resulting in a total maximum ZFA of 817,784 square feet. Of this, 441,077 square feet are available for residential use, while the remaining 376,707 square feet can be used for commercial purposes.

This was all put in place prior to China Oceanwide’s purchase of the property. The site comes ready to demolish and build for whomever decides to take it.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Totally unpopular opinion but for the sake of Lower Manhattan skyline "balance", I hope whatever goes up here is no taller than around 800'. I think having something supertall right on the waterline like that and not stepped back with other buildings like you'd have at an inland location is unappealing to me. Visually unflattering. Not ideal. Look at One Manhattan Square. Can you imagine something 2/3 again as tall? I think it would look terribly awkward on the skyline once people saw it.

Alright, let me have it.

Agree wholeheartedly

[NYguy]

This is the perfect location for a waterfront signature tower, something Manhattan surprisingly lacks. Too many of our supertalls are hidden in the canyons, with only the upper portions visible. This is a perfect location for an unobstructed (both inside and out), signature tower.

[Busy Bee]

There is such a thing as something looking awkward. 1,400 feet rising straight up from the waters edge will not look graceful in any way in reality. Not only does it have the potential to appear jarring and overwhelming in a negative way, but a tower that tall right on the edge of a downtown cluster skyline could IMO totally fuck up that downtown cluster skyline, which is iconic is every way. You're obviously entitled to disagree but I think you're wrong on this one NYguy.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

There is such a thing as something looking awkward. 1,400 feet rising straight up from the waters edge will not look graceful in any way in reality. Not only does it have the potential to appear jarring and overwhelming in a negative way, but a tower that tall right on the edge of a downtown cluster skyline could IMO totally fuck up that downtown cluster skyline, which is iconic is every way. You're obviously entitled to disagree but I think you're wrong on this one NYguy.

I think you're highly mistaken. Do you consider the WTC "awkward". I sure hope you don't. And this tower at that height would be no difference. No, this is not the Lower Eastside, as you mentioned earlier. This is the financial district of lower Manhattan. Skyscrapers are what define it. And this tower would also balance what is already there - the tallest building in the country. I hope you don't consider the Brooklyn Tower or the ESB "awkward" either.

[Busy Bee]

When 1 & 2 WTC was completed in '74 yes it looked awkward right on the river with its colossal height. I think most would agree it looked much better after BPC was created with the WFC stepping up from the water to the zenith of the twin towers.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

When 1 & 2 WTC was completed in '74 yes it looked awkward right on the river with its colossal height. I think most would agree it looked much better after BPC was created with the WFC stepping up from the water to the zenith of the twin towers.

The WTC looked out of place back then because there was nothing around it, not because it was on the waterfront. Listen, you want a tower that's hidden behind other towers, and that's fine. But the New York skyline is not for the timid. Many cities have supertall towers on the waterfront, and they are not lacking for it. But if it would kill you to look at, don't worry. You could always view the skyline from the Hudson. If they ever get around to building the Affirmation Tower of even the supertall casino at the Hudson Yards, the skyline won't be less of because they're not partially hidden behind lesser skyscrapers.

Waterfront supertalls can be stunning in their location...



https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/complex/482

[Zapatan]

^ 2IFC and ICC Tower are great examples of waterfront supertalls, the Chicago river has a few good ones too, Vista and Trump. Shanghai also has the Sinar Mas Tower which I really like.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

There is such a thing as something looking awkward. 1,400 feet rising straight up from the waters edge will not look graceful in any way in reality. Not only does it have the potential to appear jarring and overwhelming in a negative way, but a tower that tall right on the edge of a downtown cluster skyline could IMO totally fuck up that downtown cluster skyline, which is iconic is every way. You're obviously entitled to disagree but I think you're wrong on this one NYguy.

Depends on the design I think, it would also complement 1WTC from so many angles.

Something half that height here would be a bit lame IMO. It's already painful enough looking at Oceanwide's unfinished tower.

[Busy Bee]

Listen, you want a tower that's hidden behind other towers, and that's fine.

Yes. Guilty. I prefer a supertall surrounded by other towers that build up like a mountain crescendo to a pinnacle. To me that is 100x more beautiful than a lone massive supertall sitting on the side of that skyline ensemble throwing off all balance and gracefulness.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Yes. Guilty. I prefer a supertall surrounded by other towers that build up like a mountain crescendo to a pinnacle. To me that is 100x more beautiful than a lone massive supertall sitting on the side of that skyline ensemble throwing off all balance and gracefulness.

That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. However, New York has PLENTY of supertall towers relegated to being the background of many, many smaller buildings. PLENTY. But New York's not some midsized skyline that you can package neatly into a perfect box. A city with so many supertall skyscrapers, or just tall buildings in general, and with just about more waterfront than anywhere else, should have at least one (or a few) of these magnificent towers on the waterfront.



Had this one been built, it would have been among the most iconic buildings and locations in the country. Push it back, surrounded by a bunch of smaller and midsized buildings, the height would still be as impressive, but the vista not so much.




https://se.pinterest.com/pin/818177457275112133/

[Busy Bee]

I wouldn't exactly call that apples to apples. The immediate neighborhood surrounding the Spire site is nothing like Lower Manhattan.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I wouldn't exactly call that apples to apples. The immediate neighborhood surrounding the Spire site is nothing like Lower Manhattan.

We're talking waterfront towers. That proposal is even taller than any 80 South Street proposal, and surrounded by even less tall buildings. Yet, it works. You would just like a small to midsized, perfectly balanced skyline with a dominant skyscraper surrounded by smaller scale towers. However, New York's skyline is not something that fits in a box, even if it does have multiple towers surrounded by smaller towers.

[NYguy]

As far as why it's so limited to being a singular tower on this site, the irregular footprint is barely suitable for one tower, given the mixed-zoning on the site. But there is frontage on 3 sides (if you count the alley between 1 Seaport).














An alternative plan designed on that footprint...

[Lincolnlover2005]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That's literally just a PS5

[mfastx]

The half finished, abandoned One Seaport should be included in these renderings to accurately judge the impact of this tower. I think it would look a little awkward next to it personally.