NEW YORK | 30 Hudson Yards (North Tower) | 1,296 FT | 92 FLOORS - Page 29

lakegz · #**561** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:00 AM**

64 floors in 1278 feet? Damn those are some high ceilings.

If this thing were built 80 years ago, it would have 90 floors.

lakegz · #**562** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:05 AM**

oooo didn't catch this rendering.

Very reminiscent of BOA. I like BOA's cladding more than what these renders show but I prefer the proportion and massing of these towers.

RobertWalpole · #**563** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:06 AM**

These towers will have reflective glass like the WTC -- not frosted glass like BofA.

RobertWalpole · #**564** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

Let the man have some fun, he's one of the top contributors on SSP. I for one appreciate his insight info very much.

Danke, sir!

RobertWalpole · #**565** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

Ditto! RW is an excellent poster and his enthusiasm in the NYC threads is always refreshing to me.

....

Gracias, amigo!

Antares41 · #**566** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 4:38 AM**

Haven't been to this thread in a while, but, what I seen just blows me away. Those renderings are just beyond awesome. Its like NYC is moving into another building boom. Every month seems to be yielding yet another exciting projects.

Zapatan · #**567** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 8:15 AM**

Quote:

64 floors in 1278 feet? Damn those are some high ceilings.

If this thing were built 80 years ago, it would have 90 floors.

It says the top office floor is the 65th, the top maybe the 68th, but the floors are massive as you said and the last 150 feet or so is a crown, looks like the top floor is 1100 something and the top office floor 1000 something, also because of the massive trading floors below.

As much as I like this project, it kinda bums me out that they couldn't fill a 1280 foot building all the way to the top.

RobertWalpole · #**568** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 1:41 PM**

Are you bummed out about the Shard in London. Occupied floors amount to only 2/3 of the roughly thousand foot tower. In fact, not even the entire 300foot crown is even enclosed. That being said, it's still one of the best towers in the world.

THE BIG APPLE · #**569** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:15 PM**

Was this picture posted before. I'm also making a model in Sketchup.

KPF

babybackribs2314 · #**570** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:17 PM**

I don't see why having the top ~200ft as unoccupied is bad... at least they didn't just end there and stick a stupid spire on top a la NYTimes... (not that spires are bad, but that one is just plain ridiculous)

As RW said, the Shard is gorgeous... these towers remind me of a combination of the London Shard with the new WTC in terms of design; still hulking/massive at the base, but tapering to a surprisingly slender top.

hunser · #**571** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:24 PM**

both towers appeared on CTBUH:

Hudson Yards North Tower

Facts
Official Name Hudson Yards North Tower
Type building
Status proposed
Country United States
City New York City
Building Function office
Proposed 2011
Start of Construction 2012
Completion 2015
Companies Involved
Owner The Related Companies
Developer Oxford Properties Group Inc.
Design Architect Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates

Figures
Height: Architectural 389.7 meter / 1279 feet
Height: To Tip 389.7 meter / 1279 feet
Floors Above Ground 64
Floors Below Ground 1
Tower GFA 232,342 m² / 2,500,908 ft²

Hudson Yards South Tower

Facts
Official Name Hudson Yards South Tower
Type building
Status proposed
Country United States
City New York City
Street Address 10th Avenue and West 30th Street
Building Function office
Proposed 2011
Start of Construction 2012
Completion 2014
Companies Involved
Owner The Related Companies
Developer Oxford Properties Group Inc.
Design Architect Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates

Figures
Height: Architectural 303.7 meter / 996 feet
Height: To Tip 303.7 meter / 996 feet
Floors Above Ground 52
Floors Below Ground 3
Tower GFA 158,000 m² / 1,700,698 ft²

and btw we need a diagram for these towers, asap!

Zapatan · #**572** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 2:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Plans are to have work on both towers begin next year...

North tower

South tower

That's weird, the diagrams contradict each other, the first one says only 64 floors but then goes on to say the top office floor is the 65th, with more mechanical floors beyond that..

what is that about?

Anyway enough about that.. 1279 feet is damn tall, and 997 feet is also a nice height

Don098 · #**573** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

As much as I like this project, it kinda bums me out that they couldn't fill a 1280 foot building all the way to the top.

You are the king of being bummed out by skyscrapers that don't have offices at the very top of the building...that's just the way it is now.

gramsjdg · #**574** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 3:52 PM**

[QUOTE=babybackribs2314;5469197]I don't see why having the top ~200ft as unoccupied is bad... at least they didn't just end there and stick a stupid spire on top a la NYTimes... (not that spires are bad, but that one is just plain ridiculous)

...the NY Times spire may be ridiculous, but the God-awful contraption on top of Conde Nast is flat out obscene. That is a flat-out blight on the New York skyline.

(sorry, but someone had to say it)

Anyway, the top of the 1278 ft tower would be a very good spot for a restaurant.

pico44 · #**575** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 4:23 PM**

[QUOTE=gramsjdg;5469258]

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I don't see why having the top ~200ft as unoccupied is bad... at least they didn't just end there and stick a stupid spire on top a la NYTimes... (not that spires are bad, but that one is just plain ridiculous)

...the NY Times spire may be ridiculous, but the God-awful contraption on top of Conde Nast is flat out obscene. That is a flat-out blight on the New York skyline.

(sorry, but someone had to say it)

Anyway, the top of the 1278 ft tower would be a very good spot for a restaurant.

Who really cares if you consider the NYTimes Tower a supertall or not (personally, I don't). What is important, is that it is the greatest skyscraper built in the United States in the last 50 years.

Yankee · #**576** Posted **Nov 7, 2011, 6:15 AM**

Who else thinks the tops of those two towers look like the top of the Smurfit-Stone Building in Chicago.

wikipedia

Zapatan · #**577** Posted **Nov 7, 2011, 11:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

You are the king of being bummed out by skyscrapers that don't have offices at the very top of the building...that's just the way it is now.

Do I not have a right to be? I mean, it's not that bad but I think it looks weird at night when the lights show how big the floors are, it makes the building look awkward IMO.

NYguy · #**578** Posted **Nov 7, 2011, 12:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Do I not have a right to be? I mean, it's not that bad but I think it looks weird at night when the lights show how big the floors are, it makes the building look awkward IMO.

You really shouldn't be on a skyscraper site if you are going to be 'bummed out" by such an arbitrary thing. Especially considering the way most skyscrapers are built today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antares41

Its like NYC is moving into another building boom. Every month seems to be yielding yet another exciting projects.

There is so much taking shape now, I've been considering when exactly we could say we're in another boom. My prediction is likely next year, even before work construction ever begins on this site, which should be sometime next summer.

RobertWalpole · #**579** Posted **Nov 7, 2011, 4:39 PM**

The south tower crushes the groundless assertions that many raised in the Manhattan West thread that a 2m Sf tower is not likely to exceed 1,000 feet. This tower is essentially 1,000 feet, and yet, it's only 1.7m sf.

PS: Can someone post the image on p. 47 of the brochure which shows a very cool residential tower?

LeftCoaster · #**580** Posted **Nov 7, 2011, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The south tower crushes the groundless assertions that many raised in the Manhattan West thread that a 2m Sf tower is not likely to exceed 1,000 feet. This tower is essentially 1,000 feet, and yet, it's only 1.7m sf.

Not one person said it wasn't likely.

You claimed that it was virtually impossible for a 2m sf building to be less than 1,000 sf, and you were proved wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

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

not much sense in trying to change a discussion on an internet forum where everything is recorded...