NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS

[Crawford]

Paris, in terms of physical built form, is a giant museum, at least in the core, and that's a good thing. Not sure what that has to do with 1 Vanderbilt, but, yeah.

[C.]

On a macro scale, New York's zoning code needs to be revamped. We're a growing city and current zoning encourages the replacement of existing buildings rather than directing growth to underutilized spots. The transfer of development rights formula is broken. The owner's of Grand Central Terminal even have a one billion dollar lawsuit against the city for development rights it's unable to use.

As for One Vandy, the public transit improvements we're getting in exchange for the loss of the buildings on site is an acceptable trade off. It's a tall building. I'm not a huge fan of the architecture and design, especially the bottom and top portions of the building, but it isn't bad and will be a welcomed addition to the city.

My fear is we're going to see real architectural gems in the city replaced soon by boring boxes unless changes are made to the city's zoning.

[antinimby]

^ That's why I wanted to see the city allow as much buildable space at Hudson Yards, Con Ed East Side as possible. Even though the FAR was pretty high at HY, it should have been even higher. Of course we know what happened at the Con Ed Eastside with the NIMBY resistance. All very unfortunate.

I also wanted the PA to build more space at the WTC than just replace the same amount of space that was lost. The PA did not have to abide by city zoning. They could just as easily add five or six million more square feet to those towers (spread among them) if they wanted to. Imagine bigger WTC towers than the ones we got! They should have been bold. Remember, the five WTC towers are essentially replacing the Twins.

I'd prefer the city expand as much as possible in these blank slate sites before resorting to knocking down perfectly healthy, vibrant, classic NY areas. Say what you will but replacing those grand prewar buildings with soulless modern glass towers, the city loses just a little bit of its soul each time. You can't help but see how soulless an experience it is to walk down a Sixth Ave or Park Ave than say a Fifth Ave, where many of the older buildings remain.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by intheburg

It shouldn't be surprising that 21st century business has needs that might not be able to be met within the design of many 19th and 20th century buildings, even with significant interior adjustments. This will also be true, I presume, in 22nd and 23rd century New York, when One Vanderbilt might be torn down. Or maybe One Vanderbilt will be landmarked, if it's iconic enough. Or maybe One Vanderbilt will still be suitable for 22nd century needs. We'll see what 22nd century New Yorkers need, want, and decide. Best wishes to them, and I hope they make judgments that suit them well.

Well said.

But if the value of the proposal were less than the value of the existing buildings, I'd agree that it would be great if we could keep things as they are, not out of sentimentality for what is lost, but because there would be too little gained.

Well, that's just it. New York still values it's CBDs, and for good reason.

I'll use the analogy of the subway to make it clearer for some. We all know that New York thrives in no small part thanks to its subway system. Without it, the city couldn't function. Despite whatever complaints people may have about it now, it's still one of the best, if not the best in the world. Now lets just say that some of the antiquated cars (which have all basically been replaced by newer models) were considered "classic" New York subway cars. And what if it were possible to landmark these cars as "essential" to the New York subway experience. Should the city have allowed the subway to fall for the sake of keeping the "classic" subway cars, or moved ahead with replenishing a modern fleet, more up to date and suitable to keep the city moving? The answer is obvious. New York, probably more than any other city, needs to keep top of the line office space available just like it needs to keep its subway running with a modern and working fleet.

Everything in midtown east of landmarking value has already been landmarked. There will be few sites with assemblages large enough to even considering demolishment for a modern office tower. That still has to be addressed in the broader east midtown rezoning.

Originally Posted by CIA

On a macro scale, New York's zoning code needs to be revamped. We're a growing city and current zoning encourages the replacement of existing buildings rather than directing growth to underutilized spots. The transfer of development rights formula is broken. The owner's of Grand Central Terminal even have a one billion dollar lawsuit against the city for development rights it's unable to use.

I don't know where these imaginary new "cores" for commercial development would be. Grand Central, with it's regional access, along with Penn Station, and the WTC (with it's PATH terminal also providing regional access) are the current core areas, and there are no logical areas in the city to replace them.

Beyond that, where talking about a city where even in the areas designated for these large office buildings people fight against anything new being built. It's just not a good idea at all to suggests abandoning the established CBD's for the sake of keeping old buildings intact.

[plinko]

That crown is just odd. Great project, but I'm continually disappointed in that culmination. Hope it gets developed a bit further.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't know where these imaginary new "cores" for commercial development would be. Grand Central, with it's regional access, along with Penn Station, and the WTC (with it's PATH terminal also providing regional access) are the current core areas, and there are no logical areas in the city to replace them.

Quite simply the cores that NYC needs to be focused on are the ones that aren't in Manhattan. Just look at the cost of projects like ESA and Gateway and think about how much money is spent trying to get people into and out of an island every day. If more jobs were moved to New Jersey and Long Island it would drastically reduce costs as well as commute times.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Quite simply the cores that NYC needs to be focused on are the ones that aren't in Manhattan. Just look at the cost of projects like ESA and Gateway and think about how much money is spent trying to get people into and out of an island every day. If more jobs were moved to New Jersey and Long Island it would drastically reduce costs as well as commute times.

Why would New York relinquish tax revenue to New Jersey?

Corporations are free to move to Long Island but they don't, for a very good reason. Long Island doesn't have the prestige of Manhattan, and any important company wants a Manhattan address. Secondly, for every Long Island employee, there is one from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Connecticut, Westchester, New Jersey, etc. Moving to Long Island would double commute times for everyone else.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by plinko

That crown is just odd. Great project, but I'm continually disappointed in that culmination. Hope it gets developed a bit further.

I have always thought the same thing about this design... the crown looks very tacked on. the tower is basically a pyramid with the top cut off and replaced by a dinky sloping thing with a spire..

something like the original ping an finance center design would be absolutely ideal here.

[mrnyc]

these renders. the more i see the more i smh. the design is banal at best and lazy at worst. the resolution at the top and the crown is just awful. its a shame for such a potentially iconic setting that its so dull. maybe the cladding will be nice and will help. we'll see.

the only thing exciting about it is the height. that, and from an everyday pedestrian point of view the street level and grand central access. those aspects are awesome. i wish the bldg design was scrutinized as carefully as the public space has been.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

If more jobs were moved to New Jersey and Long Island it would drastically reduce costs as well as commute times.

Jobs had moved out of NYC to the suburbs for about 80 years straight, from the 1920's to 2000 or so. That didn't reduce costs nor did it reduce commute times.

As the region has been re-centering over the last 15 years ago, with the suburban office parks emptying out, there is no obvious increase in costs or commute time.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Why would New York relinquish tax revenue to New Jersey?

Since when does a state decide whether a company is allowed to locate somewhere else?

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Corporations are free to move to Long Island but they don't, for a very good reason. Long Island doesn't have the prestige of Manhattan, and any important company wants a Manhattan address.

Exactly. Billions of dollars a year are wasted so people and companies can brag about their address.

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Secondly, for every Long Island employee, there is one from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Connecticut, Westchester, New Jersey, etc. Moving to Long Island would double commute times for everyone else.

Only if you assume everyone would just keep living in the exact same spot and wouldn't relocate to be closer to their job. Shipping millions of people into and out of an island every day is massively inefficient and wasteful. As you said, the point is merely to prove you have so much money you can afford the waste and still be well off.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Quite simply the cores that NYC needs to be focused on are the ones that aren't in Manhattan.

That's crazy talk. For one thing, the city has focused on two other CBDs in the city outside of Manhattan, and have you noticed how well that's going today?
But beyond obvious logistical (not to mention space) needs, you aren't going to transplant a midtown or lower Manhattan into one of the other boroughs. That's just crazy talk.

Now, as far as this crazy skyscraper boom goes, it may go down in history as the great New York City skyscraper wars. I like the ring of that...

[WIGGLEWORTH]

^I for one hope Vandy KOs the WTC

[Yesh222]

Please. The ESB and Chrysler fought the first, and still greatest (or 2nd greatest, Sears vs Taipei and Petronas was pretty sweet too) skyscraper war 85 years ago.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Yesh222

Please. The ESB and Chrysler fought the first, and still greatest (or 2nd greatest, Sears vs Taipei and Petronas was pretty sweet too) skyscraper war 85 years ago.

lol, Sears VS Taipei and Petronas always got me angry.

Sears was always the true tallest because of it's roof height and antennas.

[rapid_business]

Is there a quick summary of where this building is at in the design/rezoning/construction prep stages?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Yesh222

Please. The ESB and Chrysler fought the first, and still greatest (or 2nd greatest, Sears vs Taipei and Petronas was pretty sweet too) skyscraper war 85 years ago.

The war of the Chrysler Building wasn't with the ESB. The ESB stood alone for decades as the dominant skyscraper icon of New York, at least until the Twin Towers were built. And though they were rivals, the WTC held an understanding with tge ESB - each would own its portion of the skline, the Empire State continuing to hold Midtown.

But now, an all out skyscraper battle has emerged for the heart and soul of New York! And not even Manhattan can contain it, with Brooklyn and Queens being thrown into the mix. In case you think we are talking about the crown of tallest, we are not, (for even the Chrysler still holds a special place in hearts).

Buildings like One Vanderbilt and 30 Hudson, and even the Nordstrom/Central Park tower look like early favorites because of direct connections to the public (shoppibg, observation decks, etc). Some with increased exposure have an advantage ( 2 WTC, 30 Hudson, 53W53).

But its still way too early to say which of this onslaught of new skyline icons will become favorites. There's not room for everyone at the top!

[Yesh222]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The war of the Chrysler Building wasn't with the ESB. The ESB stood alone for decades as the dominant skyscraper icon of New York, at least until the Twin Towers were built. And though they were rivals, the WTC held an understanding with tge ESB - each would own its portion of the skline, the Empire State continuing to hold Midtown.

But now, an all out skyscraper battle has emerged for the heart and soul of New York! And not even Manhattan can contain it, with Brooklyn and Queens being thrown into the mix. In case you think we are talking about the crown of tallest, we are not, (for even the Chrysler still holds a special place in hearts).

Buildings like One Vanderbilt and 30 Hudson, and even the Nordstrom/Central Park tower look like early favorites because of direct connections to the public (shoppibg, observation decks, etc). Some with increased exposure have an advantage ( 2 WTC, 30 Hudson, 53W53).

But its still way too early to say which of this onslaught of new skyline icons will become favorites. There's not room for everyone at the top!

I mean, if that's what you're going for then I will still disagree with you. The Empire State Building still retains the title of the most iconic and beloved skyscraper in the world. Not even the Burj Khalifa took that away. Hudson Yards will hurt the ESB's immediate recognizability for many, but I don't think anything anywhere in the world is unseating the ESB for now. Or possibly ever.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Since when does a state decide whether a company is allowed to locate somewhere else?

Your words: "the cores that NYC needs to be focused on are the ones that aren't in Manhattan."

You're saying New York should focus on shifting tax revenue out of the sate and into New Jersey.

Exactly. Billions of dollars a year are wasted so people and companies can brag about their address.

Looking at the profits being made at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., I beg to differ that a Manhattan address is a waste of money. Trust me when I tell you that these corporations have an army consultants who study these logistics, and it's quite obvious that these experts see the benefits of keeping them in Manhattan versus Long Island.

New York manages to be the most economically powerful city on earth, despite its development pattern which you see as wasteful.

Only if you assume everyone would just keep living in the exact same spot and wouldn't relocate to be closer to their job. Shipping millions of people into and out of an island every day is massively inefficient and wasteful. As you said, the point is merely to prove you have so much money you can afford the waste and still be well off.

So everyone should abandon New Jersey, Connecticut and New York and move to Long Island? Manhattan is the central point of the ti-state area. In 2015, moving massive corporations from Midtown to Bergen County, or from Downtown to Nassau County makes commutes even longer for the general pool of workers. The suburbs were developed around Manhattan, and all transit points to Manhattan. New York isn't a terrible, haphazard mess of a city like Houston where anything can be placed anywhere without care.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Yesh222

I mean, if that's what you're going for then I will still disagree with you. The Empire State Building still retains the title of the most iconic and beloved skyscraper in the world. Not even the Burj Khalifa took that away. Hudson Yards will hurt the ESB's immediate recognizability for many, but I don't think anything anywhere in the world is unseating the ESB for now. Or possibly ever.

The Empire State is still the most iconic building in the world, although arguably it was surpassed by the WTC after 9/11, and shared the top spot with those towers when they stood. The ESB has the advantage of age, appearances, and dominance on the skyline. It may still have the age, but that dominance is already being lost. No longer will height alone guarantee iconic status in New York, where supertalls will soon be common among skyscraper clusters.

I think that 1 Vanderbilt has the chance to be iconic because of its location and public nature, both above and below ground (it'll practically be an extension of Grand Central). And who wouldn't get noticed standing next to the Chrysler?

But while Downtown and the West Side (Hudson Yards) have their mega-complexes, that's something you won't get on the east side. That's where the concentration and cluster of large buildings around Grand Central comes into play. They may all have different landlords, but the new towers will be in effect the same as the concentration of new office towers both at the WTC and Hudson Yards.