New York Supertalls

[hunser]

^ Maybe it will be advertised as 100 floors, who knows. Or Shvoman finally reveals his mysterious 100-story Central Park Tower.

Btw, I feel that a megatall, i.e. a 2,000 footer, is on the horizon. Not now, but give it 3 or 4 years, and we'll see at least one serious proposal. 57th Street is already developing a 1,400ft plateau ... (I can't believe I'm saying this ).

[hunser]

Manhattan, 57th Street, 2018

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/re...he-clouds.html

From left to right: 432 PA (426m), 1 Park Lane (369m), Verre (320m), Steinway (435m), One57 (306m), Nordstrom (spire 547m, roof 466m), 220 CPS (290m).
Rendering by Otie:

[hunser]

Migthy Midtown ...


One World Observatory, Opening Day 60 by Richard Silver, on Flickr


Atmospheric Downtown ...


Sunset over Manhattan and Brooklyn by thijsroes, on Flickr

Love how all the new towers (432 PA, 30 Park, 56 Leonard,...) are making an impact on the skyline!

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by hunser

The 57th St canyon will be insane! So far we have (confirmed):

1. 217 West 57th Street, 1,795ft (547m), [roof 1,530ft / 466m] aka Nordstrom, U/C
2. 111 West 57th Street, 1,428ft (435m) aka Steinway, almost U/C
3. 432 Park Avenue, 1,397ft (426m) T/O
4. 1 Park Lane, 1,210ft (369m) APP
5. 53W53, 1,050ft (320m) aka Verre, U/C
6. One57, 1,005ft (306m), COM
7. 220 Central Park South, 950ft (290m), U/C
8. 425 Park Avenue, 893ft (272m) APP
9. 520 Park Avenue, 781ft (238m), U/C
10. 250 East 57th Street, 715ft (218m), U/C

And there are many other sites like Solow, Shvo, 31W57th, 237 Park etc..

Crazy! Except I think the 1530'/1795' Nordstrom was an old design, YIMBY said it was from June last year so I think it's still ~1480' or at least looks so in the renderings.

Still a new highest roof in the US though.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Crazy! Except I think the 1530'/1795' Nordstrom was an old design, YIMBY said it was from June last year so I think it's still ~1480' or at least looks so in the renderings.

Still a new highest roof in the US though.

I still believe the roof will be over 1,500', but we'll see. I'm more interested in what's next for New York ... so many potential sites which could even eclipse Nordstrom.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by hunser

I still believe the roof will be over 1,500', but we'll see. I'm more interested in what's next for New York ... so many potential sites which could even eclipse Nordstrom.

Yea I'm sure they're still tweaking it like always

And yes very true, I'm sure within the next few years a supertall or two will pop up that we haven't seen the design for/don't know of yet. I can't really imagine NY going more insane development wise but hey, exciting times.

[chris08876]

Some calculations for fun:


Current 300m structures globally: 90

NYC Completed, prep, demo, , u/c: 18

NYC has 20% of the supertall count.

If we add proposals to the count and keep the other factors, assuming the count stayed at 90, NYC would have 35 supertalls and 39% of the worlds supertalls. So if all goes well, and most of the proposals get built, it would be a record holder; topping Dubai by 9 supertalls. Of course the count won't remain static globally in other countries, but if it did, these would be the percentages.

[hunser]

^ You know you are spoiled when you're disappointed that not every new proposal turns into a supertall. Or that 1,200' (1 Park Lane) is just an "average" height ...

[hunser]

Potentially good news re: Nordstrom

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES025055572



The perimeter wall of One57 per DOB was listed as 953' (highest occupied floor; actual roof) ... and the building's final height was eventually 1,005'.

So yes, 1494' + ~50' could bring us back to the old 1,550' figure. Also, the floor count is now 95 instead of 92, another indicator of a height boost.

[chris08876]

That Garry Barnett... Lying through his teeth.



The 1550' height would be epic. Seeing just how dominant 432 is, it will be a sight to see.

Originally Posted by hunser

^ You know you are spoiled when you're disappointed that not every new proposal turns into a supertall. Or that 1,200' (1 Park Lane) is just an "average" height ...

The bar has been raised. One57 is a mid rise compared to whats in store, especially with the Midtown Rezoning. Its all a numbers game. The more high rises and skyscrapers, the better. Its like a real estate high. For now, enjoy the roller coaster.

The more cranes, the better the high. Even when looking at city aerials, I count the cranes first. More cranes = happier Chris.

[Cynicism]

.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Which sites are you referring too? The Times Square site at 46th Street is listed at 500 Meters here? "Hudson Spire" 1800'+ ft? Let's not kid ourselves, an office building will never reach those heights.

Not true. There are office buildings right now that actually surpass those heights. In NYC there's an office tower going up right now that is not much lower (One Vanderbilt).

And no one claimed that only office buildings were being built. Most supertalls aren't office buildings.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

The market for high-end properties is also cooling down.

Would that be why last month had the largest volume of high-priced residential sales in NYC history? The market will eventually cool down, of course, but I doubt that would mean much for the wealthiest buyers.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

I can't see another tower of this size going up within the next decade or so.

Yet supertalls are being announced practically by the week.

On what basis do you predict that the market will magically enter some great depression, with nothing built for a decade?

[C.]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Which sites are you referring too? The Times Square site at 46th Street is listed at 500 Meters here? "Hudson Spire" 1800'+ ft? Let's not kid ourselves, an office building will never reach those heights.
The market for high-end properties is also cooling down. I can't see another tower of this size going up within the next decade or so.

It's not the demand side of the equation limiting tall buildings, it's FAR limits. If permissible under zoning, we'd see a lot more 500 meter buildings. The market may be cooling somewhat, but there will still be demand for new housing and office space.

I wish we as skyscraper and urban enthusiasts had a better understanding of real estate finance, the development process and leasing. We may see a new supertall, while a developer sees 1,000,000 sqft of new Class A office space with an absorption period of six months, a positive ROI in all years following construction, and a Cap Rate of 7 percent.

[Cynicism]

.

[C.]

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Skyscraper nerds getting defensive already?

Nerds likely don't want trolls polluting threads, hence the responses.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

I was merely pointing out that the Hudson Spire will never reach a height of 1800' ft unless it has a wacky spire, but we all know that the number 1776' has to be preserved because of a gentlemen's agreement.

And we were merely pointing out that A. You have no idea of the future height of this site B. There is no such "gentleman's agreement" and C. It's clear you haven't reviewed the thread, or you wouldn't be so ignorant.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

It is also well known that Tishman Speyer is a conservative developer. A 1200' ft office building sounds just about right for that parcel. The reason why 1 Vanderbilt is taller than any other office building is because it is a narrow site. Developers build for profits, not for show.

No, actually Tishman Speyer is not known for being a conservative developer (they have some of the largest/riskiest projects on earth right now, in Asia), one Vanderbilt is not "taller than any other office building" and is not on a "narrow site". So you're 0 for 3 there.

And we're well aware that "developers build for profits, not for show". What this has to do with the conversation is beyond me. Are you arguing that all the developers are idiots?

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Also, please point out a parcel that could support a 500m tower?

You seem to be ignorant of the NYC zoning code. A 500m tower could be built anywhere in the city where there is no height limit. Much of Midtown and Lower Manhattan have no height limit. Parts of Brooklyn and Queens have no height limit.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Real proposals, not speculation. I am curious to know, since some claim that there are "many sites available".

Re-read the thread, if you're so curious. Better yet, consult the zoning text.

[Cynicism]

.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Which sites are you referring too? The Times Square site at 46th Street is listed at 500 Meters here? "Hudson Spire" 1800'+ ft? Let's not kid ourselves, an office building will never reach those heights.
The market for high-end properties is also cooling down. I can't see another tower of this size going up within the next decade or so.

1. That's why I said "potential" as there's no real proposal over 500m, yet.

2. Noone knows any specifics about the Hudson Spire aka Tishman Spire site. That floor count of 61 is simply outdated and cannot be taken seriously for such a massive project. I expect something in the 1,300' - 1,400' range.

3. I don't have the TS site listed as 400m+, but 300m+. Some articles indicate a massive tower ("new tallest").

4. Shvo Tower is listed as 400m+, because Shvoman himself said he's going to build a 100-story tower. No concrete plans have surfaced so far.

5. 1 Vanderbuilt (office) will be over 1,400 to the roof. So a mix of residential + office could yield a megatower in the near future.

6. The Midtown East / Vanderbilt Avenue corridor rezoning hast been given the green light. Again, expect even larger towers popping up here than 1 Vanderbilt.

7. It states on the very first page: "List does not include visions, canceled, never-built, limbo and unsourced projects". Please read the corresponding threads. All projects on page 1 are linked and have a thread.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

None of us have an idea of the height of this building.

Then what is your point, exactly? You have none.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

True, having height limits is one thing, but if a building if that size will go up is another story. A developer with deep pockets has to back this type of project, but where in NYC? The supposed Schvo tower near 57th street but nothing concrete yet...

Obviously we can't predict what's coming. You were the one who claimed to predict the future. The rest of us go by what we read, by what's financed, by what's actually happening. If you're following the news, supertalls are being announced almost weekly, so your claims are bizarre.

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Crawford, do you actually read stuff or do you like to have the final word on everything? Anyway, consider this....

I believe everyone on SSP is well aware of 225 W.57. Not our fault if you never heard of it, and didn't know such towers were being built.

Just read the thread and you'll learn something. There are plenty of sites in Hudson Yards, along 57th Street, in Midtown East, around Penn Station, around Times Square, in Lower Manhattan, and elsewhere.

Just today Vornado paid nearly $400 million for a small piece of a larger development site near Penn Station. You don't pay that kind of money if you aren't planning something major.

[Cynicism]

.