NEW YORK | Empire Station District | 9 Towers (18-20 msf)| FT | FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Only 1,100 feet for the highest one? Eh, could be way better.

I'd criticize the boxiness but obviously those aren't final designs.

That’s just a number in plan, there is no design for the tower yet.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That’s just a number in plan, there is no design for the tower yet.

I assumed they were height caps. Could the tower (when designed) get approval for higher than 1,100 potentially?

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

There's certainly some good stuff going on but I'm referring to the opportunity to build an extremely tall (1,650+ foot) building. I worry NYC will never see one if all the lots get filled with 900-1k footers.

This is the greatest city in the world, Zap. There's no need to worry here.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I assumed they were height caps. Could the tower (when designed) get approval for higher than 1,100 potentially?

They didn’t put in height caps, but there is a limit on density (FAR), and practicality.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by NYguy

They didn’t put in height caps, but there is a limit on density (FAR), and practicality.

Your post #953 also shows that they also have a criteria to 'prioritize Empire State Building along the 33rs street corridor.' With that, I would not be surprised if any of the buildings are less than 1100 or so in height to preserve the mast/spire views of the Empire State building from most angles. The community may probably cite that Foster's 15 Penn is enough for the area, and may even try to get Foster to reduce its height.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Your post #953 also shows that they also have a criteria to 'prioritize Empire State Building along the 33rs street corridor.' With that, I would not be surprised if any of the buildings are less than 1100 or so in height to preserve the mast/spire views of the Empire State building from most angles. The community may probably cite that Foster's 15 Penn is enough for the area, and may even try to get Foster to reduce its height.

No, you’re confusing the view from the street. What they are talkking about is actually a decrease in floor size, something that likely pushes a tower higher. (Think of the preserved view of Grand Central through Vanderbilt). But that’s all subjective, since we know even a 500 ft tower can block a view of the ESB.

Here’s a better look at that…

[NYguy]

Sites to be built out....critics of the plan would have you think a whole wave of the city will be knocked down for this plan to happen.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CanBQPGuo3V/

[Busy Bee]

Wasn't aware Gimbels/A&S/Manhattan Mall was part of this. Not sure how I feel about that.

[TonyNYC]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Wasn't aware Gimbels/A&S/Manhattan Mall was part of this. Not sure how I feel about that.

Yep.. they will tear it down to put up another glass BS looking tower, as if 15 Penn on the block wasn't enough, but hey..

the State deemed the area a slum.. so down it must come along with the Hotel Penn to revive the area around Penn.

Was on the block yesterday for the Big East Tourney at MSG.. for a slum it was alive with people everywhere!!

[Busy Bee]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of demolishing the Gimbels Building. It was designed by Daniel Burnham and besides having an obvious abundance of local history, has an interior atrium, that even though enduring hokey modernizations over the years, could really be made impressive again with an top to bottom restoration of the building with modernist elements. I would be in complete support of a Macy's approach where a tower rises from the historic structure and with a full vacating of Manhattan Mall as we have now seen in all it's pathetic glory, that would create the opportunity for a total gut rehabilitation, both inside and an exterior restoration, along with dramatically improved transit connections, while facilitating the necessary load structure to run through the building to support an impressive tower above. Win-Win.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Wasn't aware Gimbels/A&S/Manhattan Mall was part of this. Not sure how I feel about that.

That's going to be site 8, basically with the same zoning (including retail) of site 7 (15 Penn).

What we will have here, with every new building directly connected to transit, is Penn Station's answer to "Terminal City", (yeah, we know it's not a terminal). Why it took so long for this area of Midtown to be densely developed, well that's another story. It's a no brainer.

The Manhattan Mall site (Gimbels) is also the site for a residential alternative.

[Drcastro]

^ I love that skyway bridge. I don’t suppose it could be landmarked by itself.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Drcastro

^ I love that skyway bridge. I don’t suppose it could be landmarked by itself.

Buildings are sometimes partially landmarked, but this by itself isn’t something that would be landmarked.

[Busy Bee]

Gotham

[Sky88]

Why not think of a tower like to One Vanderbilt tower, instead of that banal 1,100 ft tower?

[Busy Bee]

Because lame

[NYguy]

Just another note on that residential alternative for site 8 (Manhattan Mall), while not a full design, this graphic is an indication that Vornado could opt to build a residential tower on top of (through) the current building, similar to what Macy's has planned for its new tower.

[Busy Bee]

I sincerely hope that's the direction they go.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I sincerely hope that's the direction they go.

It will probably be a few years before we know that. Vornado takes its time with these decisions.

[Busy Bee]

A modern wedding cake on top of Gimbels that didnt overwhelm Herald Sq with sheer mass and gave 15 Penn some breathing room would be ideal. Basically what I would have liked to see for Macy's tower but they have an operating building to deal with, the Manhattan Mall will be completely empty and nothing would prevent some pretty radical interior space disruption to accomodate a more striking structure on top.