NEW YORK | 125 Greenwich Street | 912 FT | 70 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by hunser

I was just thinking ... hopefully that mentality of not obstructing / diminishing 1WTC because it's an 'icon' won't last for long. Taller and bigger towers in Lower Manhattan are needed and should be built / planned as soon as the WTC complex is completed. Otherwise the skyline would be - once again - stagnant.

That was just something thrown in to make it sound good. If towers 2 and 3 won't obstruct the Freedom Tower, this one certainly wouldn't, even at the full 85 floor height. I think they are more likely looking to the larger apartments they could get buy "adding" more bulk (building closer to the street).

The zoning variance would allow Fisher Brothers to reduce the required setback of the building — the space between the edge of the property and the street — from 20 feet to about 10 to 13 feet, allowing them to make a wider building.

[NYC GUY]

^^^
Agreed
It wouldn't obstruct 1WTC at all from any angle.

[Roadcruiser1]

Actually the floor to ceiling height in this building is roughly 12 feet (840 feet/ 70 floors= 12 feet). Therefore if this building had been 85 stories instead of 70 stories it would have been 1,020 feet from street level to the roof. Add a mast and it would have soared over 1,300 feet. It would have been a pretty tall building, but it's still not too late to bring this building over 1,000 feet. If they throw in a nice crown and a mast it could rise up to 1,100 feet, but it's all up to the developer..........

[NYguy]

I doubt they would add a mast to this building, let alone one of a couple hundred feet. The full height would take it over the 1,000 ft mark, but as it is now, the tower would probably be closer to 900 ft than 800 ft. From the rendering, it looks to be above 900 ft. As a matter of fact...





http://tribecatrib.com/content/22-th...-manhattan-sky

The thin, rectangular building, slated to open in spring 2017, will either soar 1,100 feet at 85 stories or 960 feet at 70 stories. Developer Fisher Brothers is applying for a city zoning variance to build it at the lower height and make up for the loss of square footage by providing shallower setbacks—stepped recesses from the building’s street front—than the law allows.

A shorter, wider structure, with a maximum of 450 residential units, would be less costly to build, Alex Adams of developer Fisher Brothers told Community Board 1’s Quality of Life Committee last week. (In its variance application to the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals, the developer is claiming that the “as-of-right” building presents an economic hardship.)

A little more on the design...

The lower building would not visually compete with the nearby 4 World Trade Center and the other skyscrapers on and near the WTC site, said Jim Herr of Viñoly Architects, the project’s designers. The taller building, in contrast, “really interrupts the rhythm of the master planning and the massing of the entire Trade Center site,” he said.

Responding to a board member’s criticism that the design was “banal” and “undistinguished,” Adams indicated that there are limited design options for a building on a narrow (9,000-square-foot) site and, also, that aspects of the design are still a work in progress. “I don’t want to present this in any way, shape or form as a finished product,” he said, “but I think this is clearly the direction that we’d like it to head in.”

As a lesson from Hurricane Sandy, the buildings’ mechanicals, he said, will be installed in higher floors. The ongoing demolition of the site’s current building is expected to be finished by September. Construction of the new building would then begin next spring.

I don't understand this "rhythm" of the WTC thing. The master plan was for the site itself, not for all of Downtown.

[Onn]

960 feet would be quite bit a higher than was originally thought. I still would like to see something in the 1,000+ range, I think having a tower nearly as tall as 4WTC right next store to it puts a cap on the skyline. Still whatever height gets built there will look pretty good either way.

[NYguy]

We need better renderings of the tower itself, even if its not the finished product. But it will be very slender at either height, maybe Downtown's version of 432 Park Avenue.

[hunser]

FFS, we don't need another near - supertall, we already have 4WTC and the Equinox Tower.
That argument with not obstructing / interfering with the WTC is, once again, redundant.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

I always knew that the WTC's master plan would become a problem for downtown...Lower Manhattan has no space left for new development, it's narrow streets make it less appealing then midtown and to top it off the small plots that are left are being taken and banal residential towers are being built on them. The only place LM has to go is up. To compete as a CBD in years to come LM has to build lager slender towers and the WTC cannot hold LM hostage just because it holds a sentimental place on the skyline. We need more supertalls and were probably one of the only cities on the planet that has an actual demand for them. I only hope that one WTC looses its place as The areas tallest skyscraper in the next few years and the WTC keeps its master plan to itself and not superimpose it onto all of Downtown.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

I always knew that the WTC's master plan would become a problem for downtown...Lower Manhattan has no space left for new development, it's narrow streets make it less appealing then midtown and to top it off the small plots that are left are being taken and banal residential towers are being built on them. The only place LM has to go is up. To compete as a CBD in years to come LM has to build lager slender towers and the WTC cannot hold LM hostage just because it holds a sentimental place on the skyline. We need more supertalls and were probably one of the only cities on the planet that has an actual demand for them. I only hope that one WTC looses its place as The areas tallest skyscraper in the next few years and the WTC keeps its master plan to itself and not superimpose it onto all of Downtown.

The master plan isn't that bad, the problem is that it's probably out of date already considering the amount of demand we've seen. Not just from residential space (none of which was ever really including in the plan) but office space too (even though all the WTC towers aren't being built yet, oddly enough, the demand is there). I can't help but feel disappointed that 1WTC's roof was topped out at only 1,373 feet. During that time I don't think it was wildly believed that tenants would want space in supertall towers again so close after 9/11. The world wasn't building 2,000 foot towers back then. That was 2005, this is 2013.

All of these near supertall residential towers going up in downtown are just that, near supertalls. These aren't the same big guys going up in Midtown near Central Park. They are shorter, less ambitious, less expensive. Still among the tallest in the city though. Personally I think the developers in downtown are aiming more for the domestic market/Wall Street group than the international billionaires seeking trophy residential spaces.

[MarshallKnight]

I don't think the developer has any intention of building the 1100 ft tower. It sounds to me like they've determined a shorter building with larger floorplates will be more profitable, and they are playing to the inherent nimbyism of the CB in order to scare them into allowing this variance -- hence the "disrupting the rhythm of the WTC" talk, and the truly awful render.

They're hoping the CB freaks out at this supertall tower, and as a compromise, will give the developer the right to build wider in exchange for sacrificing height... which is what the developer wants in the first place.

You don't even really need to read between the lines, they basically come out and say as much in the articles. Seems like smart business to me.

[JayPro]

@NYGuy:
maybe; but IMO it's worth considering that all the 700'>'ers being worked on, planned, or released in bombshell articles (i.e. this one and the resurrected taller 80 South) are located to close to WTC to somehow not be included in the Libeskind vision.
This one, at a scant 10 or so feet below WTC4 to roof, will have to receive the sort of aesthetic deliberation that makes it fit without visual discontinuity.
Similarly, 99 Church and even 80 South--so tall for where it is, yet so far from the Complex--will be interesting to see in terms how they respect the Libeskind plan as Downtown's upward apex, yet somehow accentuate it, as this building will certainly have to.
This experiment will IMO end well. Sr. Viñoly passed the overall test with 432P and this should be no more dificult.

[Roadcruiser1]

At least it will help with the WTC spiral..........

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

I always knew that the WTC's master plan would become a problem for downtown...Lower Manhattan has no space left for new development, it's narrow streets make it less appealing then midtown and to top it off the small plots that are left are being taken and banal residential towers are being built on them. The only place LM has to go is up. To compete as a CBD in years to come LM has to build lager slender towers and the WTC cannot hold LM hostage just because it holds a sentimental place on the skyline. We need more supertalls and were probably one of the only cities on the planet that has an actual demand for them. I only hope that one WTC looses its place as The areas tallest skyscraper in the next few years and the WTC keeps its master plan to itself and not superimpose it onto all of Downtown.

Agreed. However it seems very likely that 1 WTC will remain the tallest building in Lower Manhattan for most of our lifetimes. I don't really see space in Lower Manhattan that could yield a succeeding supertall or megatall unless one of the boxes were demolished. The WTC will probably always dominate Lower Manhattan, but at least Midtown is developing rapidly in the West Side.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Agreed. However it seems very likely that 1 WTC will remain the tallest building in Lower Manhattan for most of our lifetimes. I don't really see space in Lower Manhattan that could yield a succeeding supertall or megatall unless one of the boxes were demolished. The WTC will probably always dominate Lower Manhattan, but at least Midtown is developing rapidly in the West Side.

Hmmm don't count your eggs before they hatch...


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/...3328bea2_o.jpg


http://www.evolo.us/wp-content/uploa...7/ISedgar1.jpg

[chris08876]

Downtown itself is so crowded. There is room to meet office demand but it would yield very slender and tall towers. Unless they start building in the northern part of Lower Manhattan (Parallel to Canal St.) or even near Beekman Tower, then they would have plenty of room.

What I'd really like to see is taller structures going along the West Side Highway. Prime views and it would create a wall from Battery Park City to the Hudson Yards Area.

[chris08876]

Isn't that the sky void tower? I thought that was a vision or is it now a serious proposal?

[Condopedia]

It's a very nice looking building....as a render that is.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MarshallKnight

I don't think the developer has any intention of building the 1100 ft tower. It sounds to me like they've determined a shorter building with larger floorplates will be more profitable, and they are playing to the inherent nimbyism of the CB in order to scare them into allowing this variance -- hence the "disrupting the rhythm of the WTC" talk, and the truly awful render.

That's jus what it is, but the height difference is only about 140 ft. That won't make or break how it fits the surrounding area, but they are claiming a "hardship", the the taller tower will be more costly to build. They didn't even have to bring talk of the WTC into it. If anything, the heights of the WTC towers would make the taller version of this one more in place. Either way, it's going to be a very slender residential tower.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Isn't that the sky void tower? I thought that was a vision or is it now a serious proposal?

Vision still but we can dream.

[Blaze23]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Agreed. However it seems very likely that 1 WTC will remain the tallest building in Lower Manhattan for most of our lifetimes. I don't really see space in Lower Manhattan that could yield a succeeding supertall or megatall unless one of the boxes were demolished. The WTC will probably always dominate Lower Manhattan, but at least Midtown is developing rapidly in the West Side.

I very much doubt we'll wait that long to see a building surpass the WTC in matter of heights considering all those much talked about supertalls going up in midtown (at the exception of Hudson Yards) are being built by taking down older structures, i don't see why that trend wouldn't extend to Lower Manhattan. Considering how smaller LM is compared to Midtown and how much of the area is landmarked, i actually think developpers will keep pushing for even taller towers wherever they can build them. But only time will tell.