NEW YORK | 80 South Street | 1,436 FT | 113 FLOORS - Page 40

NYguy · #**781** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 1:23 PM**

This could have been a little more epic...

https://www.de-simone.com/leadership-type/structural-engineering/

Quote:

Hongbo Wang joined DeSimone in 2007 and is currently a Senior Associate in the firm’s New York office.

Ms. Wang has managed many large residential and high-rise mixed-use projects. She is currently managing 220 Central Park South, a new 950ft tall 430,000sf luxury residential condominium tower in New York City; 99 Hudson, a new 915ft, 1.4 million sf residential tower in Jersey City, New Jersey; 80 South Street, a 1,600-foot-tall, 850,000 sf residential condominium and hotel project in New York City;

ssh · #**782** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garynewman

Is that two 1600 ft towers announced in the last week?

What was the other one? Also, wasn't this proposal scrapped?

NYguy · #**783** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssh

wasn't this proposal scrapped?

The site is currently for sale.

ssh · #**784** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

The site is currently for sale.

I misunderstood your comment. Thought you meant that the announcement that a 1,600' tower was going up at 80 South could have been a little more epic.

I think it'll be a tough sell solely due to One Seaport.

NYguy · #**785** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssh

I misunderstood your comment. Thought you meant that the announcement that a 1,600' tower was going up at 80 South could have been a little more epic.

No, just specific information on a tower that was in the works that we hadn't seen before, at least here. It could be active for all we know. But the site is still for sale.

https://www.de-simone.com/projects/

Zapatan · #**786** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 6:11 PM**

That could've been a mistake, would love a 1,600 footer here though.

I really hope they can put something higher than the roof of 1WTC.

.

NYguy · #**787** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That couldn't been a mistake, would love a 1,600 footer here though.

What?

Zapatan · #**788** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

What?

Typo

NYguy · #**789** Posted **Feb 14, 2025, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That could've been a mistake

So, it could've been 1,700 ft. Got it.

NYguy · #**790** Posted **Mar 21, 2026, 12:50 AM**

China Oceanwide is not going to build this tower. So hopefully, now that they've unloaded their other stalled American projects, this will get more spotlight. Not sure how much that will matter, considering the mess that is 1 Seaport. I feel that the City should condemn that structure, close off a portion of the alley in between these two sites, creating an opportunity for an expanded footprint. As is though, it remains a mixed-use residential/commercial (hotel) tower with unlimited height. Downtown is booming again with large amounts of residential conversions, and the amenities that come with that.

https://www.bkrea.com/listings?propertyId=80-south-street-new-york-sale

80 South Street For Sale - Mixed-Use Development Site

Quote:

Development Plans:

-Future development will provide unobstructed panoramic views due to no height restrictions and proximity to the East River and South Street Seaport Historic District.

-Max FAR of 15 for commercial or community facility uses, with up to 12 FAR for residential use.

-Total max ZFA: 220,770 square feet, with 176,616 square feet designated for residential use.

-Includes approximately 189,734 ZFA of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) from neighboring lots and 407,280 South Street Seaport

-Development Rights (SDRs), allowing a total max ZFA of 817,784 square feet.

-Residential allocation: 441,077 square feet; commercial allocation: 376,707 square feet.

Quote:

Opportunity Highlights:

-80 South Street offers an exceptional opportunity for developers to leverage strong demand in a vibrant live-work-play environment.

City partial closure and selling of this alley, along with demolition of the 1 Seaport eyesore would improve things here IMO.

Crawford · #**791** Posted **Mar 21, 2026, 1:33 AM**

Good news. Should be another major supertall.

Hopefully this sells to Extell or another major NYC developer known for well-designed towers.

Zapatan · #**792** Posted **Mar 21, 2026, 11:02 PM**

Please top 1WTC lol

C. · #**793** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 12:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Please top 1WTC lol

I would love to see 1WTC being topped one day soon. It shouldn't be like some sort of height limit. This is why I support that stupid never-going-to-happen vision in Oklahoma City. It would be a kick NYC in the arse for NYC that it continually needs to go big rather than rely on legacy alone.

ChiND · #**794** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 11:20 AM**

To live over the FDR isn’t too alluring. Comrade Mamdani should coordinate the demolition of the elevated FDR south of City Hall. The waterfronts in Boston and Seattle were dramatically improved by getting rid of car traffic that cut off the waterfront.

Mayor Lenin also should eliminate all car traffic on Water Street and have only an east bus lane and a west bus lane. The other four lanes should be dramatically expanded, landscaped sidewalks. In fact, all of FiDi should get a lot more greenery and less cars. With a beautiful waterfront, it could be a very desirable place to live.

All of Water Street should look like this sans the car parking.

RBA Group

9 14 49 33 50

Busy Bee · #**795** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 3:11 PM**

The opportunity should be taken to buy 161 Maiden outright and dismantle it and once and for all write the end chapter to that saga. They could then combine that lot for a larger footprint. Fletcher Street could either dead-end at an interior entry courtyard of a new development or it could bridge over it to improve circulation of the increased traffic generated by a new development of this scale. As for the height, as stated numerous times over the years, for aesthetic reasons I don't think parking a supertall right on the waterfront will be complimentary to the classic mountain-peak layout of the Lower Manhattan skyline. I'd much rather see a fatter massing that doesn't exceed 800 feet or so, but I'm sure many height foamers on here would disagree with this opinion.

ChiND · #**796** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 3:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The opportunity should be taken to buy 161 Maiden outright and dismantle it and once and for all write the end chapter to that saga. They could then combine that lot for a larger footprint. Fletcher Street could either be dead-end at an interior entry courtyard of anew development or the development could bridge over it and reopen it to improve circulation with the increased traffic generated by a new development of this scale. As for the height, as stated numerous times over the years, for aestheruc reasons I don't think parking a supertall right on the waterfront will be complimentary to the classic mountain-peak layout of the Lower Manhattan skyline. I'd much rather see a fatter massing that doesn't exceed 800 feet or so, but I'm sure many height foamers on here would disagree with this opinion.

I completely agree. The adjacent lots leading to John Street also should be incorporated into this project.

9 14 49 33 50

DCReid · #**797** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The opportunity should be taken to buy 161 Maiden outright and dismantle it and once and for all write the end chapter to that saga. They could then combine that lot for a larger footprint. Fletcher Street could either dead-end at an interior entry courtyard of a new development or it could bridge over a reopened Fletcher Street to improve circulation with the increased traffic generated by a new development of this scale. As for the height, as stated numerous times over the years, for aesthetic reasons I don't think parking a supertall right on the waterfront will be complimentary to the classic mountain-peak layout of the Lower Manhattan skyline. I'd much rather see a fatter massing that doesn't exceed 800 feet or so, but I'm sure many height foamers on here would disagree with this opinion.

That side of the downtown waterfront already has three fat buildings, which in my opinion, detract from the skyline. I don't think it needs another, but I would tend to agree that that several parcels should be combined for a larger footprint. I also agree that a taller building than 1 WTC would not look great here, and I think that is wishful thinking anyway.

Busy Bee · #**798** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 3:23 PM**

Fat as in thicker than a pencil. Not fat as in 55 Water.

Sky88 · #**799** Posted **Mar 22, 2026, 4:39 PM**

The adjacent lots leading to John Street are not included in this project. Furthermore, it would be foolish to propose an 800-feet tower on this site. A 1,400-1,500-feet tower would be more than adequate.

MAC123 · #**800** Posted **Mar 23, 2026, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The opportunity should be taken to buy 161 Maiden outright and dismantle it and once and for all write the end chapter to that saga. They could then combine that lot for a larger footprint. Fletcher Street could either dead-end at an interior entry courtyard of a new development or it could bridge over it to improve circulation of the increased traffic generated by a new development of this scale. As for the height, as stated numerous times over the years, for aesthetic reasons I don't think parking a supertall right on the waterfront will be complimentary to the classic mountain-peak layout of the Lower Manhattan skyline. I'd much rather see a fatter massing that doesn't exceed 800 feet or so, but I'm sure many height foamers on here would disagree with this opinion.

Why would you ever wanna see an 800 fter here? It would literally disappear.