NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Ridiculous. It's the tenant that will get this tower built, and that's all that matters. Besides, putting something like this in the hands of "the people", we'd be lucky to get anything above 50 stories.

"You're ruining the fabric of the neighborhood!"

[NYguy]

Exactly. They only allowed a public "vote" on the generic site plans. The later site plans with architectural details was left to the governor's committee, and he (Pataki) even overruled them. The Port Authority had a practical site plan to deal with.

[BXFrank]

Comon guys lol he probably meant to say let the skyscraper forum people vote, if it was like that we’ll have 4 kingdom towers in Lower Manhattan. But seriously what ever we get at this point after 19 years is good just to fill that gap and restore Lower Manhattan FIDI. Btw I work in Lower Manhattan by Brooklyn Bridge City Hall, the problem with this area is that is boring, dark and empty. Theres a boom in residential buildings excellent transit, but the area lacks entertainment, as a result tenants would rather pick more exiting areas like Midtown. Brook field and WTC mall is not enough to bring tenants to fill 2 million sf and also the fact that it lacks direct access to Metro North and LIRR. Probably a media entertainment company would be the best thing for this tower and area.

[ESysyn]

Originally Posted by BXFrank

Comon guys lol he probably meant to say let the skyscraper forum people vote, if it was like that we’ll have 4 kingdom towers in Lower Manhattan. But seriously what ever we get at this point after 19 years is good just to fill that gap and restore Lower Manhattan FIDI.

that is exactly what i meant, and even add in another design with the same height or taller.

[pianowizard]

Shouldn't this thread be moved back to the "Proposals" forum?

[Hudson11]

Sounds like hizzoner would be happy to not see this tower built.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BXFrank

Comon guys lol he probably meant to say let the skyscraper forum people vote

It doesn't matter. The only people who need to decide on the design are the people building it and the people for whom it is being built.

[BXFrank]

What you’re saying is facts NYGuy I agree, I was being sarcastic probably didn’t write it correctly, obviously billion dollar projects between tenants and developers are not made by logging on to skyscraperpage to get approval lol

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by BXFrank

What you’re saying is facts NYGuy I agree, I was being sarcastic probably didn’t write it correctly, obviously billion dollar projects between tenants and developers are not made by logging on to skyscraperpage to get approval lol

It would nice though. Hell, if SSP could have oversight and the final decision on every project, I think the Earth would look like this...


Credit: https://opengameart.org/content/city-planet

[Jordan de California]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It would nice though. Hell, if SSP could have oversight and the final decision on every project, I think the Earth would look like this...

[Picture of Coruscant goes here]

Eh. Not tall enough.

I've been watching from afar everything that's been going on at this site since the day the Twin Towers were destroyed. At first, I was upset that the rebuilding didn't happen immediately and with glorious pride. Now, though, while it looks un-aesthetic to have this gap in the skyline, I'm glad they're taking the time to do this in a more economically sound manner than the way the Twins were originally built. They flooded the market with office space that wasn't really needed at all at the time, let alone for their intended purpose of housing companies dealing in international trade.

We all love watching supertalls sprout like weeds in Midtown and all over China, but I think it's important to remember that these buildings are not an end in themselves. They are places for people to use. There has to be a balance between building enough of what's needed and the resources of the builders. Overbuilding can be just as disruptive as underbuilding, just in different ways.

2WTC will rise, when the time is right. And it will be what we need, not necessarily what we want. If we're very lucky, as skyscraper nerds, it will be both.

[chris08876]

^^^^^

And if we all recall after 9/11, they thought the skyscraper was dead. The days of tall towers were over. That folks wouldn't want to live or work in tall towers...

Meanwhile, 24 or 25 super talls later (complete, u/c, serious proposals that WILL happen), countless towers over 800-994 ft , vertical is the name of the game

[JMKeynes]

https://therealdeal.com/2019/04/24/u...nned-100b-ipo/

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Jordan de California

I'm glad they're taking the time to do this in a more economically sound manner than the way the Twins were originally built. They flooded the market with office space that wasn't really needed at all at the time, let alone for their intended purpose of housing companies dealing in international trade.

Overbuilding can be just as disruptive as underbuilding, just in different ways.

2WTC will rise, when the time is right. And it will be what we need, not necessarily what we want. If we're very lucky, as skyscraper nerds, it will be both.

That's exactly right. And it takes Downtown longer to absorb all of that space. So things are moving, just maybe not fast enough for some. It would be nice to see Silverstein complete the rebuilding, which I think is another reason why he said he mau build on spec. But we'll see. In the meantime though, it's not as if we are lacking on projects to watch go up.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

https://therealdeal.com/2019/04/24/u...nned-100b-ipo/

The company has been scoping out buildings in Midtown near Bryant Park and 3 World Trade Center for somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 square feet, sources told Crain’s.

CBRE is handling the company’s search.

The more space we fill up at the WTC, the better.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

And if we all recall after 9/11, they thought the skyscraper was dead. The days of tall towers were over. That folks wouldn't want to live or work in tall towers...

In a way supertalls were already "dead" before 9/11/2001 because after the original WTC's completion in 1973, not another supertall would be built until the NYT in 2007 and the B of A in 2009, although both were fake supertalls, so there wouldn't be a true supertall until 2014, when One57 and the new WTC were finished. I never figured out why New Yorkers had no interest in building supertalls for four decades. You mentioned buildings between 800 and 994 ft (I believe you meant 984 ft, corresponding to 300 m). Actually only four such buildings were completed between 1973 and 9/11/2001, so even for this shorter category, not much was happening before 9/11. Chicago was actually busier than NYC in that period.

[chris08876]

A lot has changed. It all started with Bloomberg too, and the boom just continued onward. Still going pretty strong at the moment too.

With 2 WTC, it stinks that it has not had any luck, when so many other developments have. Even 1 Vandy, which is still u/c, is 60% leased.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

In a way supertalls were already "dead" before 9/11/2001 because after the original WTC's completion in 1973, not another supertall would be built until the NYT in 2007 and the B of A in 2009, although both were fake supertalls, so there wouldn't be a true supertall until 2014, when One57 and the new WTC were finished.

I recall that after 9/11 people thought supertall skyscrapers in general wouldn't be built. Even the 900 ft NYSE tower that was planned was quickly scrapped. The Trump Tower in Chicago was planned to be higher, but reduced in height. That was the feeling back then. The future didn't seem to bright for extra tall buildings. But in just a matter of time, just the opposite came to be true, and supertall skyscrapers began to blossum in full around the world.

I never figured out why New Yorkers had no interest in building supertalls for four decades. You mentioned buildings between 800 and 994 ft (I believe you meant 984 ft, corresponding to 300 m). Actually only four such buildings were completed between 1973 and 9/11/2001, so even for this shorter category, not much was happening before 9/11. Chicago was actually busier than NYC in that period.

There were in fact supertall skyscrapers proposed in New York in that period, they just didn't get built. And no supertalls were built in Chicago during that same period. What's driving the towers today is the demand for new, modern office towers. New York has a lot of office space, but the vast majority of it is old or outdated. Even buildings built just 20 years ago are past prime. Tower 2 is really the only option Downtown for a large office tower, that's why I believe its time will come, whether Silverstein decides to move forward now or wait a while longer.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by chris08876

A lot has changed. It all started with Bloomberg too

Ah yes, I remember getting excited by it when I first joined SkyscraperPage in 2005, because at 806 ft it was the tallest NYC skyscraper built after 9/11 (the 861 ft Trump World Tower topped out in 2000). Today ~800 ft in Manhattan would be a yawn!

Originally Posted by chris08876

With 2 WTC, it stinks that it has not had any luck, when so many other developments have. Even 1 Vandy, which is still u/c, is 60% leased.

Midtown seems more popular these days, and the fact that 1 Vandy has only 58 floors also helps a bit.

Originally Posted by NYguy

There were in fact supertall skyscrapers proposed in New York in that period, they just didn't get built. And no supertalls were built in Chicago during that same period.

The period I was referring to was after the original WTC and before 9/11/2001. Aon was finished around the same time as 2 WTC so let's exclude that, but Chicago still completed three other supertalls in that period:

Sears (1451 ft) in 1974
Franklin Center (1007 ft) in 1989
Two Prudential Plaza (995 ft) in 1990

Franklin Center and Two Prudential look kind of short standing right next to Sears and Aon, so we sometimes forget that they are actually supertalls.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Ah yes, I remember getting excited by it when I first joined SkyscraperPage in 2005, because at 806 ft it was the tallest NYC skyscraper built after 9/11 (the 861 ft Trump World Tower topped out in 2000). Today ~800 ft in Manhattan would be a yawn!

That tower also had a previous 900 ft version that was scrapped. Still, we were happy to get the current version after delays.

Midtown seems more popular these days, and the fact that 1 Vandy has only 58 floors also helps a bit.

Midtown is, and always has been the most desirable office location in the city - as long as it has the latest in office space available. It's why Downtown is always slower to absorb space. Even the Hudson Yards wouldn't have gotten off to as fast a pace if those large, new towers were available in Midtown proper. But the fact is that neither of these areas alone can serve as the lone business district in the city. They are meant to supplement each other to serve the city as a whole, even including expansion areas like DT Brooklyn, and Long Island City.

The period I was referring to was after the original WTC and before 9/11/2001. Aon was finished around the same time as 2 WTC so let's exclude that, but Chicago still completed three other supertalls in that period:

Sears (1451 ft) in 1974
Franklin Center (1007 ft) in 1989
Two Prudential Plaza (995 ft) in 1990

Franklin Center and Two Prudential look kind of short standing right next to Sears and Aon, so we sometimes forget that they are actually supertalls.

Huh??? Sears was built around the same time as the WTC.

the NYT in 2007 and the B of A in 2009, ....both were fake supertalls, so there wouldn't be a true supertall until 2014, when One57 and the new WTC were finished.

Your own comment, so my statement still stands. But it hardly matters. Tgere's a buulding boom now, the city is once again building supertall office towers, and we only hope to get this one started so we can close the chapter on 9/11. In that regard, I hope Silverstein moves forward.

[BXFrank]

Originally Posted by chris08876

With 2 WTC, it stinks that it has not had any luck, when so many other developments have. Even 1 Vandy, which is still u/c, is 60% leased.

Is not luck, Like I said before, development is like natural selection, just the lay out of middtown with Grand Central Station, Penn Station, the tunnels and bridges bring in masses of people to midtown Times Square,Broadway, 5th Madison and Park ave all land in one spot, Middtown. It brings demand for business and office space, if it wasn’t for the need to replace the original Twins there is really no need for millions of sq ft for a supertall commercial space in Lower Manhattan. The original Twins where empty by the 90s, Residential supertalls yes but not business. The city/government tried to inject money in the new WTC even Silverstein is trying to inject from his own to bring up tower 2. But your can’t force demand and that’s why it’s been 19 years to fill up this area.

[BXFrank]

To further add, the whole bank financial and business atmosphere been slowly leaving lower Manhattan, JPmortgan tower, Pine street ect are turning their towers to residential buildings and moving to middtown