NEW YORK | 1 Manhattan West | 995 FT | 71 FLOORS - Page 25

ChicagoSpire2000 · #**481** Posted **Oct 8, 2011, 9:26 PM**

They might both be 1200 feet XD

scalziand · #**482** Posted **Oct 8, 2011, 11:15 PM**

To my eye, it looks like the taller one has been shortened, but not enough to make it the same height as the shorter one.

Hed Kandi · #**483** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 12:08 AM**

..

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**484** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Lest we forget about those second world cities?

I dont believe any other city is building that many supertalls atm.

RobertWalpole · #**485** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 11:36 AM**

Some people are spreading unfounded rumours, without any basis whatsoever, that these towers will be 290m. Interestingly, not one advocate of those idiotic rumours has cited an article that these towers will be less than 300m. Indeed, it's virtually impossible for a 2m sf tower to be less than 300m.

Most signficantly, people overlook the third tower, which is planned to be a 1.2m sf residential. That's utterly gigantic and should be well in excess of 300m.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/110909984

Brookfield plans unusual method for West Side

September 2, 2011 9:33 a.m.

(Bloomberg) - ...Brookfield Office Properties' project, named Manhattan West, calls for two towers of 2 million square feet each and a third of 1.2 million square feet, plus as much as 200,000 square feet of retail space....

manchester united · #**486** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Some people are spreading unfounded rumours, without any basis whatsoever, that these towers will be 290m. Interestingly, not one advocate of those idiotic rumours has cited an article that these towers will be less than 300m. Indeed, it's virtually impossible for a 2m sf tower to be less than 300m.

Most signficantly, people overlook the third tower, which is planned to be a 1.2m sf residential. That's utterly gigantic and should be well in excess of 300m.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/110909984

Brookfield plans unusual method for West Side

September 2, 2011 9:33 a.m.

(Bloomberg) - ...Brookfield Office Properties' project, named Manhattan West, calls for two towers of 2 million square feet each and a third of 1.2 million square feet, plus as much as 200,000 square feet of retail space....

Therefore there is the chance that we can have 3 ( and not only 1 ) supertalls to this site !!!

Zapatan · #**487** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 1:56 PM**

I really hope there are 3 supertalls on the site, however.. isn't Bank of America 2msf? and only 945 feet?

So it makes sense that both towers are 935 feet, not saying they definitely are, but they kept the 935 footer in the rendering, got rid of the 1215 footer and put another 935 footer in the rendering.

You have to be blind to not see what I am talking about... like, if you can't see it, I don't understand how you're using a computer in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

If this is what you mean, again, I wouldn't jump to conclusions from this render. Still, the project could be evolving. Keep in mind that a lot depends on market demand for these towers.

yankeesfan1000 · #**488** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I really hope there are 3 supertalls on the site, however.. isn't Bank of America 2msf? and only 945 feet?

So it makes sense that both towers are 935 feet, not saying they definitely are, but they kept the 935 footer in the rendering, got rid of the 1215 footer and put another 935 footer in the rendering.

You have to be blind to not see what I am talking about... like, if you can't see it, I don't understand how you're using a computer in the first place.

Yeah, BofA is 2.1M sf. Guess we might just have to wait and see what Brookfield says I suppose.

RobertWalpole · #**489** Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I really hope there are 3 supertalls on the site, however.. isn't Bank of America 2msf? and only 945 feet?

So it makes sense that both towers are 935 feet, not saying they definitely are, but they kept the 935 footer in the rendering, got rid of the 1215 footer and put another 935 footer in the rendering.

You have to be blind to not see what I am talking about... like, if you can't see it, I don't understand how you're using a computer in the first place.

Amigo,

Where on earth are you getting the 935 foot figure from? Firstly, these towers sit at different angles, and therefore, you don't even know that they're, in fact, the same height or if that's simply how it appears in a rendering. Secondly, you don't know if these towers are 935 high, 1,100 feet high or some other number. Thirdly, BofA has a MASSIVE trading floor which eats a lot of square feet. If a non-financial firm anchors one or both towers, there will not be a massive trading floor.

Zapatan · #**490** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 1:42 AM**

^because they use the EXACT SAME rendering as the 935 footer for both buildings... their porpotions are not enough to make them higher, nor are their floor counts.

At least if the rendering is correct... BOA also has less floors than these buildings so it is entirely possible to fit 2msf into a 935 foot building...

I hope I'm wrong, I really do...

PS. it also says both towers are 2msf, the old taller one was supposed to be 2.6 or something like that. Now they are the same...

It really could not be more obvious that the towers are not the same height and probably less than 300m.

RobertWalpole · #**491** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 10:29 AM**

I'm not going to argue with you. It's pointless. The 1200+ foot tower had the same shape too. Anyway, your assumptions are factually unfounded and as irrational as Joe McCarthy's.

Zapatan · #**492** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 12:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I'm not going to argue with you. It's pointless. The 1200+ foot tower had the same shape too. Anyway, your assumptions are factually unfounded and as irrational as Joe McCarthy's.

That's all fine and good, but there really shouldn't be an argument.. I'll agree that we should wait for more information but...

From the first page (orginial plan)

Two towers:
66 stories - 3.4 msf - 1,216 ft
60 stories - 1.9 msf - 935 ft

Now they are both 2msf (Although, I don't know how accurate the first figure was because a 66 story building with 3.4 msf would be waaaaaay fatter than a 60 story building with 1.9msf so I don't know.)

RobertWalpole · #**493** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 1:17 PM**

It's a tribute to NY that in the midst of a recession, a new forest of 300m+ towers will be rising!

From the 10 Oct. 2011 WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576621440319836976.html?mod=WSJ_NY_RealEstate_LEFTTopStories"

Zapatan · #**494** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 3:56 PM**

If there is a third office tower, besides the residential one, that could possibly be higher than 300 meters, otherwise, unless the change the 2 msf figure, they can't be...

4WTC is 2.3 msf and 977 feet, BOA 2.1 msf and 945 feet... just using common sense.

If both towers were 1200 feet they would have made the tower on the right taller rather than the tower on the left shorter... it's REALLY obvious if you look at the rendering.

patriotizzy · #**495** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 4:47 PM**

I have to agree with Zapatan. By just looking at the new renderings, it looks like the taller was cut short a bit. However, I'm not going to call out numbers without knowing the facts. I hope that's not the case because different heights adds some variety, especially for buildings with no real details or setbacks.

scalziand · #**496** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 5:30 PM**

Google News link for those who don't have subscriptions:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576621440319836976.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

NYguy · #**497** Posted **Oct 11, 2011, 1:40 PM**

It's senseless to argure about design changes when we have yet to see any specifics of what Brookfield is now proposing to build. As mentioned earlier, a lot could depend on market demand, and we're not even certain the designs of the towers themselves haven't changed.

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/...latec-companies-prepare-for-construction

West Side arms race continues as Brookfield, Related prepare sites for construction

October 10, 2011

Quote:

In their efforts not to fall behind one another in the development of massive West Side sites, Related Companies and Brookfield Office Properties each plan to begin construction at its property early next year, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Brookfield has said several times that next year it will start constructing the $300 million deck above the rail tracks, along Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd Streets, needed before any structures rise. The firm has named the site Manhattan West. Through its other holdings, the company has relationships with many of the city's most prominent office tenants and expects to fill the buildings with those clients.

Though both firms acknowledged competition for tenants would be fierce, Related said its advantage would be the larger mixed-use projects complimenting the office buildings on its site. Brookfield, on the other hand, boasted that it owns its development site, which is also closer to existing transit

LeftCoaster · #**498** Posted **Oct 11, 2011, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Indeed, it's virtually impossible for a 2m sf tower to be less than 300m.

This is just plain wrong.

At 4m industry standard for an office floor that equates to 75 storeys in a 300m building, this would necessitate floorplates fo 26,000sf to reach 2million sf, which is quite average for a AAA office building, verging on small for a building with 2 million sf.

30,000sf is a very realistic number for a floorplate for a building that high, which could result in a tower as low as ~265m.

caltrane74 · #**499** Posted **Oct 11, 2011, 6:49 PM**

Robert at it again, eh?

The Bow, in Calgary is well over 2 million square feet and is just 236 meters.

Don't get too excited just yet.

Zapatan · #**500** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 2:09 AM**

Yea, this is a bad omen for the West side, if these supertalls are shortened, that means all of the proposed towers are likely to be. (15 Penn, Girasole, and whatever other towers there will be)

I never get my hopes up with NYC.

But as always, let's hope I'm very wrong...