NEW YORK | 3 Hudson Blvd (The Girasole) | 987 FT | 56 FLOORS | ON HOLD - Page 6

Alliance · #**101** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdawg

I meant under construction and proposed only. I believe NYC has more 1000+ proposals on the table right now, three at the WTC alone, two on far west side, BofA and NYTimes that come to mind immediately.

Kind of. Things are done differently in Chicago than New York. We don't really make threads for things we don't have very official confirmation of (ie that we have renders and a serious propoal) as opposed to "this lot was sold and this developer wants to build something.

If we used the New York system, we would have three more proposal-rumors. These would include Pelli's Wolf Proposal, Smith's Franklin Proposal, and Smith's Zero Energy tower. These being the ones that have gotten some press. There should be other serous rumos as well (somone like Pandemonious of Bvic would know), I'm just not in the Loop enough(fig and lit

) to know.

I think both cities are doing very well right now and bringing some great new quality to the table.

Dac150 · #**102** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

I think both cities are doing very well right now and bringing some great new quality to the table.

NYguy · #**103** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Kind of. Things are done differently in Chicago than New York. We don't really make threads for things we don't have very official confirmation of (ie that we have renders and a serious propoal) as opposed to "this lot was sold and this developer wants to build something.

If we used the New York system, we would have three more proposal-rumors.

Keep your "Chicago system" in Chicago. New York could care less what threads you have or don't have. I can never understand Chicago forumn members obsession with constantly trying to stack up to New York. Be excited about what you have. Being Chicago doesn't mean you have to be New York.

NYguy · #**104** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 7:55 PM**

Not to exact scale, but a comparison of the two 34th Street designs...

NYguy · #**105** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephenapolis

I like this tower, but at the same time find it boring. It does not look like a 1000 footer to me.

Guess it depends on perspective also. Here's a comparison of a similar rendering (also not to scale) that gives an idea...

Dac150 · #**106** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 7:58 PM**

This will be the ultimate canyon entrance.

tdawg · #**107** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:13 PM**

avoiding a city vs city, there's no denying that New York is at least growing, having added a million people since 1990 (the city, not the metro). These people will need places to work and live, and land is scarce, so that means going up, up, up...

NYguy · #**108** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

This will be the ultimate canyon entrance.

BTW, the largest of those towers on 34th has yet to be revealed. Then there's the entire railyard development that has to be revealed as well. Who knows what the dominant tower will be?...

NYguy · #**109** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdawg

avoiding a city vs city, there's no denying that New York is at least growing, having added a million people since 1990 (the city, not the metro). These people will need places to work and live, and land is scarce, so that means going up, up, up...

That was the thinking behind the Hudson Yards redevelopment. Things seem to be moving along faster than the 30-year-span thinking of the city. I guess we have to take into account that things will eventuall slow down for a couple of years (as they always do).

Dac150 · #**110** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

BTW, the largest of those towers on 34th has yet to be revealed. Then there's the entire railyard development that has to be revealed as well. Who knows what the dominant tower will be?...

That's the beauty of those two towers (Sherwood not confirmed heightwise). They are just the tip of the iceburg of whats to come. Most cities would be happy to get just one of those buildings. For NYC their just the begining.

Dac150 · #**111** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I guess we have to take into account that things will eventuall slow down for a couple of years (as they always do).

The 1990's.

NYguy · #**112** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:55 PM**

NOVEMBER 3, 2007

The site looking east on 34th Street. The red brick building on the left is on the site of
the planned park and Hudson Boulevard that will seperate this tower from Sherwood's planned giant...

A passing glance into the pit...

CHAPINM1 · #**113** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

The 1990's.

The 80's didn't seem so hot either.

BTW, thanks for the pics NYGUY!

NYguy · #**114** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

The 80's didn't seem so hot either.

BTW, thanks for the pics NYGUY!

No problem. There was a lot of space built in the 80's that led to problems in the 90's. That in turn led to things going relatively quiet for a while, which is why we're in the predicament we are now - new space being gobbled up almost as quickly as it comes on the market. There always has to be a certain amount of space available.

Dac150 · #**115** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

The 80's didn't seem so hot either.

They were and weren't. Some well know buildings that went up in that decade were the WFC, 7 WTC, 1 Worldwide Plaza, The IBM Building, The AT&T Building, 1585 Broadway, The Lipstick Building.

The early 90's (90,91) weren't as bad. You had the completion of the WFC, some build up around Times Square (Bertlesman, 1585 Broadway), and 712 Fifth Avenue. After that, things started going down hill.

I would say NYC's building booms were:

1920-1939
1959-1990
2002-Present

The 40's and 50's were more like innovative years (seagram, UN, Lever House, 100 Park Avenue, Time Life, and some others of 6th.

CoolCzech · #**116** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 10:19 PM**

Wow! They're going to loom side by side, veritable (dare I say it?) Twins...

CoolCzech · #**117** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

BTW, the largest of those towers on 34th has yet to be revealed. Then there's the entire railyard development that has to be revealed as well. Who knows what the dominant tower will be?...

You gotta figure someone will grab for the chance to put up New York's forever tallest tower, a 2,000 footer. If they can't overcome NIMBY opposition in the middle of an abandoned railyard, than New York will never have a 2,000 footer anywhere.

speedy1979 · #**118** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

You gotta figure someone will grab for the chance to put up New York's forever tallest tower, a 2,000 footer. If they can't overcome NIMBY opposition in the middle of an abandoned railyard, than New York will never have a 2,000 footer anywhere.

I agree they should combine the two buildings into one then add an architectural top. We need a 2000 footer.

Dac150 · #**119** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 10:56 PM**

Not 2,000 ft, 2,001 ft. Then NYC will have the tallest in the country.

Dac150 · #**120** Posted **Nov 4, 2007, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

[img]Wow! They're going to loom side by side, veritable (dare I say it?) Twins...

Thats what I though when I saw that rendering. I garuntee people walking on the street next to these things when they are completed will have that thought of the WTC in their head.