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

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by 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.

it is by far not the perfect spot for a signature waterfront tower.

it flooded like crazy down there during sandy and it was a mess for months. my spouse’s old office bldg next door (one water/199 water street) were worried water would rise enough to wreck the famous frank stella paintings in the lobby.

not really sure, but thee perfect place is probably the site below united nations.

[Crawford]

All of Lower Manhattan (and I think everywhere south of 14th Street?) is covered by the recently completed East River resilience gates. So this is prolly among the least likely spots for flooding.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Are you not aware of the other smaller towers around it? Have you not noticed the neighbors of the other supertalls going up in the city. It’s a reason they’re called supertalls, and it isn’t because they blen in so neatly heightwise with their neighbors.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

it is by far not the perfect spot for a signature waterfront tower.

The city has enacted new laws regarding anything on the waterfront and in flood prone areas. But there’s a reason why so many buildings on Water Street and that area in general are becoming residential. New buildings are going to go up down there regardless. But I’d rather be 1,000 ft up in a flood.

[bdurk]

I won't lie, this might be the one case I am actually a little NIMBYish towards. I think that all the supertalls going up in midtown are great, but something about this tower just doesn't look right to me. It would make the Lower Manhattan skyline super imbalanced in my opinion. I personally hope it gets built with a huge height reduction or not at all. I hate to be a NIMBY but I can't help it in this case.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by bdurk

I won't lie, this might be the one case I am actually a little NIMBYish towards. I think that all the supertalls going up in midtown are great, but something about this tower just doesn't look right to me. It would make the Lower Manhattan skyline super imbalanced in my opinion. I personally hope it gets built with a huge height reduction or not at all. I hate to be a NIMBY but I can't help it in this case.

lol how can you be a nimby if you dont live here

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Are you not aware of the other smaller towers around it? Have you not noticed the neighbors of the other supertalls going up in the city. It’s a reason they’re called supertalls, and it isn’t because they blen in so neatly heightwise with their neighbors.

Given that my apartment view has been right at that eyesore for the last 3 years, yes I am aware of the other towers in the area. One Seaport already is taller than all the other towers nearby.

I also don't care that much and am always in favor of new development. I already think One Seaport looks awkward but I prob just hate what an eyesore it is due to being abandoned.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by bdurk

I won't lie, this might be the one case I am actually a little NIMBYish towards. I think that all the supertalls going up in midtown are great, but something about this tower just doesn't look right to me. It would make the Lower Manhattan skyline super imbalanced in my opinion. I personally hope it gets built with a huge height reduction or not at all. I hate to be a NIMBY but I can't help it in this case.

There will be no huge height reduction. It’s fine to be NIMBY. However, you don’t get to invalidate other NIMBY concerns when they don’t think something should be built because its “too tall”, or some other such nonsense. What’s valid for you is valid for others.

Originally Posted by mfastx

Given that my apartment view has been right at that eyesore for the last 3 years, yes I am aware of the other towers in the area. One Seaport already is taller than all the other towers nearby.

I also don't care that much and am always in favor of new development. I already think One Seaport looks awkward but I prob just hate what an eyesore it is due to being abandoned.

Maybe you should just move. Problem solved. By the way, this isn’t some new proposal. What’s allowed to be built on this site was settled years ago. More than enough tine for anyone who objects to get away.

[Four Sticks]

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.

I agree

[DCReid]

There's really no demand for a residential skyscraper that tall in the downtown area right now. I doubt there will be a demand even 10 years from now. A few of the less tall residential buildings downtown have run into construction problems and delays and I would doubt any financial institution would lend money to finance such a tall building downtown. As of now, this proposal is dead on arrival.

[Crawford]

A very tall building downtown could obviously be financed and built, just as elsewhere in Manhattan. It wouldn't get Billionaire's Row-type pricing, but there's no obvious reason it won't happen.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

There's really no demand for a residential skyscraper that tall in the downtown area right now. I doubt there will be a demand even 10 years from now.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the height that's important, but the amount of space and units. There's a whole wave of conversions and apartments coming to that area. https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=260180

There's residential demand everywhere in New York, and especially Manhattan. Anyway, half of this project will be a hotel, something the city sorely needs now that it has ran itself into a hole in that regard.

Originally Posted by Crawford

A very tall building downtown could obviously be financed and built, just as elsewhere in Manhattan. It wouldn't get Billionaire's Row-type pricing, but there's no obvious reason it won't happen.

And they're not even lookin for billionaires row pricing. Even the failed 1 Seaport had buyers of some of the units there before that project went to hell. I. think people are banking on the height creating extremely high prices, but that isn't always the case. There's a chance we could even see a tower taller than this built on the west side with affordable housing, though that is not a requirement here.



The transfers to the site that were completed prior to China Oceanwide's purchase:

















This site is barely outside of the historic district....

[DCReid]

[QUOTE=NYguy;10306130]You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the height that's important, but the amount of space and units. There's a whole wave of conversions and apartments coming to that area. https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=260180

There's residential demand everywhere in New York, and especially Manhattan. Anyway, half of this project will be a hotel, something the city sorely needs now that it has ran itself into a hole in that regard.




Conversions are under consideration and happening downtown because the huge glut in office space downtown, the obsolescent of the office space, and the low demand for office space downtown. Unlike midtown, we are not reading about teardowns for shiny new buildings downtown...And also, it does not seem that NYC favors tall residential skyscrapers on its waterfront anyway, unlike Chicago, which has been building tall on its lakefront for decades. I am not aware of any tall residential building proposed or under construction in midtown on the water. There were plenty of opportunities, such on the westside and instead they are building shorter mostly chunky residential buildings.

[MAC123]

[QUOTE=DCReid;10306320]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the height that's important, but the amount of space and units. There's a whole wave of conversions and apartments coming to that area. https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=260180

There's residential demand everywhere in New York, and especially Manhattan. Anyway, half of this project will be a hotel, something the city sorely needs now that it has ran itself into a hole in that regard.




Conversions are under consideration and happening downtown because the huge glut in office space downtown, the obsolescent of the office space, and the low demand for office space downtown. Unlike midtown, we are not reading about teardowns for shiny new buildings downtown...And also, it does not seem that NYC favors tall residential skyscrapers on its waterfront anyway, unlike Chicago, which has been building tall on its lakefront for decades. I am not aware of any tall residential building proposed or under construction in midtown on the water. There were plenty of opportunities, such on the westside and instead they are building shorter mostly chunky residential buildings.

I can think of 5 different supertall or near supertall projects off the top of my head that were built on or close by to the waterfront in NYC. (which isn't hard btw, Manhattan is literally an Island. Not to mention every other waterfront in the city).

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Maybe you should just move. Problem solved. By the way, this isn’t some new proposal. What’s allowed to be built on this site was settled years ago. More than enough tine for anyone who objects to get away.

No need to be a dick, relax. I'm allowed to comment on how a building looks on an architecture forum.

My comment had nothing to do with what's "allowed" to be built on the site or objecting to something tall being built there, you must be conflating my posts with someone else.

My original point that the renderings should include One Seaport, it's disingenuous for them not to.

[ChiND]

I don't think that anything spectacular will rise here. Who wants to live next to the FDR? Also, this area lacks a lot of amenities.

The city should pedestrianize FiDi, and it should raze the FDR south of the Brooklyn Bridge exit. This area has extraordinary potential to be utterly magnificent, but right now, it's not remotely living up to its potential.

[NYguy]

[QUOTE=DCReid;10306320]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Conversions are under consideration and happening downtown because the huge glut in office space downtown, the obsolescent of the office space, and the low demand for office space downtown.

You make no sense. You're telling me they are creating all of this new residential space with NO demand? That's just stupid. Everyone knows of the residential demand in New York. That's anywhere and everywhere. That's why there is constant new residential space going up all over the city, not just in Manhattan. And the only thing that hampers that is the zoning. When a tower is built here, there will be demand for it. And I hope I don't have to tell you anything about the demand for hotel space.

Originally Posted by mfastx

No need to be a dick, relax. I'm allowed to comment on how a building looks on an architecture forum.

Listen, you relax. Let me explain something to you, and anyone else who may be having trouble comprehending this. New York is a very large city. But in the vastness of the city, there are relatively very few places where you can build a tower of the height proposed here. Very few places where you could build a tower of half this height in the city. If you happen to live in one of these areas, and are shocked (shocked!) that a tower of this scale might rise, well, there's a word for you. But far be it from me to say it.

[DCReid]

[QUOTE=NYguy;10306776][QUOTE=DCReid;10306320]

You make no sense. You're telling me they are creating all of this new residential space with NO demand? That's just stupid. Everyone knows of the residential demand in New York. That's anywhere and everywhere. That's why there is constant new residential space going up all over the city, not just in Manhattan. And the only thing that hampers that is the zoning. When a tower is built here, there will be demand for it. And I hope I don't have to tell you anything about the demand for hotel space.


I did not say there was NO demand in residential space. I said there was NO demand in office space downtown. If there was, they would either renovate the office space downtown or demolish office buildings to build new swanky office towers like they are doing in midtown with 1 Vandy and JPMC. So, with little office demand downtown, they are turning to residential downtown given the demand for residential throughout the city and some incentives to convert the aging office buildings downtown.

I'm done with this blog - no use speculating on this site until something more concrete comes as far as I am concerned...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I did not say there was NO demand in residential space. I said there was NO demand in office space downtown. If there was, they would either renovate the office space downtown or demolish office buildings to build new swanky office towers like they are doing in midtown with 1 Vandy and JPMC. So, with little office demand downtown, they are turning to residential downtown given the demand for residential throughout the city and some incentives to convert the aging office buildings downtown.

I'm done with this blog - no use speculating on this site until something more concrete comes as far as I am concerned...

Good. Because you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. We're talking about a skyscraper that if it started construction TODAY wouldn't be available for a few more years, at least. And as I've said, there is demand across the entirety of New York City, especially in Manhattan. The conversion of office to residential only serves that purpose, and the neighborhood continues to be come more residential. And by the way, you should know that office to residential has been happening Downtown for years.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Listen, you relax. Let me explain something to you, and anyone else who may be having trouble comprehending this. New York is a very large city. But in the vastness of the city, there are relatively very few places where you can build a tower of the height proposed here. Very few places where you could build a tower of half this height in the city. If you happen to live in one of these areas, and are shocked (shocked!) that a tower of this scale might rise, well, there's a word for you. But far be it from me to say it.

Lmao. All I said was that it might look a little awkward next to the existing building. And then I get lectured to like this which has nothing to do with my original comment. Oy vey.

[NYguy]

^ I'm sure people thought the same about the Empire State.

Get ready for some awkwardness.