HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    One Vanderbilt in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1261  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2015, 12:09 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTO View Post
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.
You do realize that these same people could be working in Kansas and be just as productive right? Everything is done by computer these days, people aren't actually buying and selling physical stocks. The reason these companies are here is because the people with banking knowledge are here. It's just an artifact of history, not any competitive advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTO View Post
New York manages to be the most economically powerful city on earth, despite its development pattern which you see as wasteful.
The fact they have so much money is exactly WHY they are so wasteful. Who cares about being efficient when you have a Trillion dollars of GDP in such a small area? You can afford to splurge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTO View Post
So everyone should abandon New Jersey, Connecticut and New York and move to Long Island?
No, they should spread out more evenly across the area. Some North, some East and some West. I mean, if this were SimCity you would just nuke everything and start over, but obviously you can't really do that so you have to live with some of the physical obstacles and just try to work around them over time. Staten Island would be a good place for a lot of development given its low density.
     
     
  #1262  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2015, 12:15 AM
artspook's Avatar
artspook artspook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: manhattan
Posts: 594
everyone just wants to be where the action is . . .
and manhattan's got it going on in almost every category . .
great place to work . . even better place to live !
__________________
artSpook
     
     
  #1263  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2015, 1:01 AM
WIGGLEWORTH WIGGLEWORTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cities
Posts: 153
And it will stay that way. Its "THE CITY"
__________________
__________________________________________
I am Pancake re-incarnated
     
     
  #1264  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2015, 7:46 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008






     
     
  #1265  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2015, 5:55 PM
599GTO 599GTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
You do realize that these same people could be working in Kansas and be just as productive right? Everything is done by computer these days, people aren't actually buying and selling physical stocks. The reason these companies are here is because the people with banking knowledge are here. It's just an artifact of history, not any competitive advantage.

No, they should spread out more evenly across the area. Some North, some East and some West. I mean, if this were SimCity you would just nuke everything and start over, but obviously you can't really do that so you have to live with some of the physical obstacles and just try to work around them over time. Staten Island would be a good place for a lot of development given its low density.
You're advocating turning New York into Sprawlsville, USA. There is a very good reason New York is so special and unique in the United States. 95% of U.S. cities mirror your preferred pattern of development, so you have have a very large selection of cities to chose from. Move there?

Last edited by 599GTO; Oct 18, 2015 at 6:10 PM.
     
     
  #1266  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2015, 6:03 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
ψ Sailor of the Mind ψ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 36,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
You do realize that these same people could be working in Kansas and be just as productive right? Everything is done by computer these days, people aren't actually buying and selling physical stocks. The reason these companies are here is because the people with banking knowledge are here. It's just an artifact of history, not any competitive advantage.
The real question is who in the f wants to work in boring ass Kansas versus NYC. They flock here for a reason. Productivity is not just a matter of the mode of operations for a certain job, but the exposure to different ideas and a people.

Manhattan versus Kansas... hmmm.... good question. Well, I guess Kansas is where most people want to be hence why many fortune 500's have their HQ there.

Also, Kansas is approaching 3 million people. It was 2 million flat in 1950. A hub of migration indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTO View Post
I like the concentration of culture and business in the city.


Culture is also another reason they flock here. Culture is good for business.
     
     
  #1267  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2015, 4:04 PM
rapid_business's Avatar
rapid_business rapid_business is offline
Urban Advocate
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy View Post






It's almost looking a little 'TransAmerica'-ish in some of those renderings. I like it!
__________________
Cities are the most extraordinary human creation. They are this phenomenon which has unbelievable capacity to solve problems, to innovate, to invent, to create prosperity, to make change and continually reform. - Ken Greenburg
     
     
  #1268  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2015, 9:58 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Remember
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Here
Posts: 52,998
Exclamation

This thread is about 1 Vanderbilt, not Kansas. Please stay on topic.
     
     
  #1269  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2015, 11:01 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTO View Post
You're advocating turning New York into Sprawlsville, USA. There is a very good reason New York is so special and unique in the United States. 95% of U.S. cities mirror your preferred pattern of development, so you have have a very large selection of cities to chose from. Move there?
Urban sprawl like a Tokyo is fine. The density is what matters, not sprawl itself. If NYC could somehow keep the density up high with a large area of low to mid rise dense urban sprawl, the city would not necessarily suffer in terms of urbanity Unfortunately, Americans prefer to live in low-density suburbs and NY's density drops off rapidly outside the core. The problem is that most US cities don't have the population to sustain both density and sprawl that leads to a poor urban experience. Yes?

In fact, I would prefer a larger area of mid-rise/high rise sprawl like a Tokyo or Seoul over a small concentrated area of hyper high rise density like Manhattan. It gives a more varied city and a larger area of usable city. Maybe there would be less scrapers, but there would be more land and urban neighborhoods to explore. If NY had kept it's pre 1920's appearance in Manhattan, I would prefer this to the current situation of focusing everything on Manhattan and building tall buildings. We all know that that version of Manhattan was the most beautiful and grand. The current NY isn't as pretty at all.

IF LA had Tokyo like density, it would be a city that would be very interesting to me. Replace all those low rise buildings with 10 story apartments and more poles of high rise, and you'd have a city that would give NY a run for it's money in America. It has a beach too.

Last edited by aquablue; Oct 20, 2015 at 11:15 PM.
     
     
  #1270  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2015, 11:12 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
In fact, I would prefer a larger area of mid-rise/high rise sprawl like a Tokyo or Seoul over a small concentrated area of hyper high rise density like Manhattan. It gives a more varied city and a larger area of usable city. Maybe there would be less scrapers, but there would be more land and urban neighborhoods to explore.
Yes, this is exactly what is needed. BOTH sprawling suburbs AND massive high-rises are inefficient. The high rises don't really even create that much density because they're relatively limited in number and increasing heights bring rapidly diminishing returns due to core/floor ratios. A large expanse of mid-rises is far more dense than a few high-rises surrounded by brownstones.
     
     
  #1271  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2015, 2:53 AM
WIGGLEWORTH WIGGLEWORTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cities
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Yes, this is exactly what is needed. BOTH sprawling suburbs AND massive high-rises are inefficient. The high rises don't really even create that much density because they're relatively limited in number and increasing heights bring rapidly diminishing returns due to core/floor ratios. A large expanse of mid-rises is far more dense than a few high-rises surrounded by brownstones.
The massive skyscrapers are only inefficient in the way their space is being allocated. If we had dense, quality highrises being built I dont think there would be such a problem... but what we have in the market right now is a craving for ultra-luxury, ultra-wasteful high rise apartaments.
__________________
__________________________________________
I am Pancake re-incarnated
     
     
  #1272  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2015, 7:51 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Yes, this is exactly what is needed. BOTH sprawling suburbs AND massive high-rises are inefficient. The high rises don't really even create that much density because they're relatively limited in number and increasing heights bring rapidly diminishing returns due to core/floor ratios. A large expanse of mid-rises is far more dense than a few high-rises surrounded by brownstones.
But let's face it, a sprawl of mid rises isn't entirely guaranteed to be of high quality architecture. It could end up being a massive ugly concrete mess like Sao Paolo or Tokyo. The best solution for visual interest would be a sprawl of Parisian style buildings surrounding a core of modern mega-talls of Shanghai Tower worthy designs.
     
     
  #1273  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 5:52 AM
artspook's Avatar
artspook artspook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: manhattan
Posts: 594
Each facade seems to sport a unique crown elevation/profile . .
I'm not so sure about the crown configuration from the North (that I've seen so far) . .
But that nighttime skyline shot from the east with the big illuminated crown . .
and even the daytime shot from the East with the reflection of the Chrysler . .
. . looks ph*kin' GREAT to me ! . .
__________________
artSpook
     
     
  #1274  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 10:45 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008
You really notice the balance on the skyline.

NYC really needs this tower.
     
     
  #1275  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 1:47 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 45,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIGGLEWORTH View Post
The massive skyscrapers are only inefficient in the way their space is being allocated. If we had dense, quality highrises being built I dont think there would be such a problem... but what we have in the market right now is a craving for ultra-luxury, ultra-wasteful high rise apartaments.
There's nothing "wasteful" about ultra-luxury towers. They aren't replacing office space which requires land for larger floorplates. What would you rather have, those luxury mansions stacked vertically on top of each other, affecting very little footprint in the city, or sread out horizontally? The answer should be obvious.



http://nypost.com/2015/10/26/kkr-nea...-hudson-yards/

By Steve Cuozzo
October 26, 2015


Quote:
There are rumored jumbo-space hunts which fizzle out before a deal is actually made, and then there are real ones. In the latter category is a search by UBS, which is methodically prowling for between 700,000 square feet and 900,000 square feet in Midtown.

The bank is not expanding but contracting: It recently scaled back its presence in Stamford, Conn., and at 299 Park Ave. in Manhattan. Its main business center is at 1285 Sixth Ave., where it has 900,000 square feet.

UBS must move because AXA, which owns 1285 Sixth with JP Morgan Asset Management and also owns by itself 787 Seventh Ave., has put both towers up for sale for a hoped-for $4 billion. We’ve learned that AXA has told UBS it won’t renew its lease, which is up in 2020.

Sources say UBS has seen or soon will see presentations by representatives for at least five possible new homes. Three are existing towers: the Durst Organization’s 4 Times Square, Related’s Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle and Rockefeller Group’s 1271 Sixth Ave. Two others are under construction — SL Green’s One Vanderbilt and Brookfield’s One Manhattan West.

Durst’s 4 Times Square will be empty when Skadden Arps leaves in 2020 (for Manhattan West); TWC will be available when Time Warner moves to 30 Hudson Yards in 2019; and 1271 Sixth when Time Inc. leaves for Brookfield Place downtown over the next two years.

Meanwhile, both One Vanderbilt and One Manhattan West will be completed in time for UBS in 2020. UBS is expected to issue a formal request for proposals once its preliminary look-sees at all the properties are completed.
__________________
NEW YORK heals.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #1276  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 2:42 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,341
Has anyone seen how the site prep is progressing since the last update?
     
     
  #1277  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 7:23 PM
WIGGLEWORTH WIGGLEWORTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cities
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
There's nothing "wasteful" about ultra-luxury towers. They aren't replacing office space which requires land for larger floorplates. What would you rather have, those luxury mansions stacked vertically on top of each other, affecting very little footprint in the city, or sread out horizontally? The answer should be obvious.



http://nypost.com/2015/10/26/kkr-nea...-hudson-yards/

By Steve Cuozzo
October 26, 2015
I think you misunderstand me NYguy. Going up is more efficient than building out obviously. To have luxury you must have waste, and there's nothing wrong with that.
These towers could fit twice as many people if they were filled with regularly sized NYC apartments.
They are not as efficient as possible, and that is fine for now.
__________________
__________________________________________
I am Pancake re-incarnated
     
     
  #1278  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2015, 8:28 PM
Cynicism Cynicism is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 100
.

Last edited by Cynicism; Aug 10, 2020 at 10:17 PM.
     
     
  #1279  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 1:11 AM
WIGGLEWORTH WIGGLEWORTH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cities
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynicism View Post
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!!

But seriously don't use logic on these individuals that are fascinated with heights.
Of course the middle ground between the two would be massive skyscrapers EVERYWHERE instead of just a few.
__________________
__________________________________________
I am Pancake re-incarnated
     
     
  #1280  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 1:29 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008


     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:09 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.