NEW YORK | 80 South Street | 1,436 FT | 113 FLOORS

[ATLksuGUY]

Originally Posted by Shwayze1994

Can someone delete the above post, the link doesn't work or something. I really have no idea what I'm doing and this is all an embarrassment now. Lol

The image shows up fine for me.

Thanks for that btw!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Shwayze1994

This may be this generation's ESB.


[IMG]24915605232_bbf9e0bb3e_h by Marshall Knight, on Flickr[/IMG]

I wouldn't say it was this generation's ESB, even with an additional spire or height element. There's just too much similar height going up, with Nordstrom, 1 Vanderbilt, even the Freedom Tower which is nearby with it's 1,776 ft spire. I thing the sheer number of these giants going up may be this generations ESB, dramatically altering the skyline.

Meanwhile, here's a look where our potential skyscraping beauty will rise...(right next to, and blocking the view of the ugly hotel that just went up).


http://rinaldinyc.com/portfolio-item...t-fletcher-st/

[NYguy]

More fun with height markers...

Image from Erik Marroquin






Height markers for 80 South, 45 Broad, and 125 Greenwich...(other towers are left out, like 2 WTC)

[TonyNYC]

[QUOTE=NYguy;7380341]More fun with height markers...


From those pictures...80 South provides a great bookend to 1 WTC ...but the tower that really fills out and balances the downtown skyline off is 45 Broad St.


AWESOME time to be a skyscraper junkie here in my hometown..NYC IS RISING!!

(:

[NYguy]

Yeah, 45 Broad will be great because it will bring height back to the middle of the district, while the other towers fill out either side.

And I agree this is a great time to be a skyscraper fan in the city. You would have never expected to see this many great projects going on, even in New York.

[WIGGLEWORTH]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yeah, 45 Broad will be great because it will bring height back to the middle of the district, while the other towers fill out either side.

And I agree this is a great time to be a skyscraper fan in the city. You would have never expected to see this many great projects going on, even in New York.

I agree. Balance is something that Downtown has needed for a long time. And now we get it Ten-Fold!

[jbermingham123]

Speaking of balance, here is 45 Broad street's updated rendering (as of about an hour ago):

[WIGGLEWORTH]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Speaking of balance, here is 45 Broad street's updated rendering (as of about an hour ago):

The design was reviewed and they are going to reclad the Burj Khalifa so as not to confuse the general populous.

[Roadcruiser1]

It will probably look very similar, and be located very close to the former New York Stock Exchange Tower which was proposed by Donald John Trump, Senior in the 1990's, and was never built. The older renderings should give us an idea of what this building should look like, and how it will dominate the Lower Manhattan skyline.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u.../nysetower.jpg

[artspook]

sigh . . there it is . .
Burj Khalifa's logical location . .
It would have another title of course . .
It is such a NYC-deco-feeling tower . .
then you compare CPT . .
If only NYC developers had maintained their preeminent vision . .
throughout the city's history . .

[NYguy]

The logical location for that one to be built was in the desert where it was, with its massive footprint. New York builds towers that feel like they belong on the strret, whether it be 100 ft or 1,000.

[chris08876]

Supertall after all: Developer cleared to build 1,436-foot tower at Seaport

Let there be height! Seaport residents thought they escaped the prospect of a light-blocking, supertall tower last year when Howard Hughes Corporation nixed its plans for a 500-foot residential development, but a deal just sealed with a Chinese developer has cleared the way for a skyscraper nearly three times as tall.

Howard Hughes’s $390-million sale of 80 South St. to China Oceanwide Holdings on Mar. 17, along with a massive transfer of nearby air rights, will allow the new owner to build the second-tallest tower in the city, after One World Trade Center, and the thirdtallest building in the entire country.

Disappointed locals threw shade at the new plans.“I often wonder why I put sunglasses on when I leave the house,” said Paul Hovitz, a member of Community Board 1’s Seaport Committee. “We live in the canyons of New York.”

Now that China Oceanwide Holdings has cemented its ownership over 80 South Street, between Fletcher and John Streets, they’re clear to proceed with their tentatively planned 1,436- feet high, 113-story, mixed-use building, according to documents filed with the City Planning Commission.

That would be just 356 feet shy of the 1,792-foot-tall One World Trade Center — counting the spire — and 293 feet short of the country’s second tallest building, the 1,729-foot-tall Willis Tower in Chicago.

With all its accompanying development rights, the building will have a total of 1,067,350 square feet of floor space, although only 817,784 square feet have been zoned for use, with 441,077 square feet of residential, and 376,707 square feet for either hotel, office, or retail use, documents show.

Currently, the number of residential units remains undetermined, but based on the city’s average of 750-squarefeet per one-bedroom apartment, the skyscraper’s residential section could accommodate 588 units.

The tower is sure to inspire both awe and ire as it rises up to its full height, but locals are concerned that new residents moving into the titanic tower will further strain the neighborhood’s already overtaxed school system.

After three years of looking, the School Construction Authority recently settled on a site at Trinity Place for a new 476-seat elementary school — a number that will likely be dwarfed by the number of kids expected to move into the new mega building, according to Hovitz.

“Just that building will require more school seats than the new school that’s going in on Trinity Place,” he said.

==============================
http://www.downtownexpress.com/2016/...treet-seaport/

[NYguy]

Disappointed locals threw shade at the new plans.“I often wonder why I put sunglasses on when I leave the house,” said Paul Hovitz, a member of Community Board 1’s Seaport Committee. “We live in the canyons of New York.

That's right, idiot.

Also, the person who wrote that piece needs to get it together. How could you write something and not know there was already a taller tower under construction in the same town? I know NY is big, but get with it.

[chris08876]

The Canyons make it so you don't need sunglasses.

Disappointed locals.... What a bunch of self centered, white-privileged a-holes. Complaining about a development that won't impact their lives minus possibly an angle of their panoramic view from their units.

They fought hard to stop the South Seaport residential component, but now, karma has come back. Personally, anyone who lives in Manhattan has no right to complain. They live in the Alpha City of the world. The island where millions wish they could live. Complaining about a tall building is a first world problem. In other words, its not a real issue.

Originally Posted by NYguy

Also, the person who wrote that piece needs to get it together. How could you write something and not know there was already a taller tower under construction in the same town? I know NY is big, but get with it.

He's busy admiring that ridiculous hair cut of his instead of focusing on the facts.

His twitter: https://twitter.com/colinmixson

[antinimby]

With all its accompanying development rights, the building will have a total of 1,067,350 square feet of floor space, although only 817,784 square feet have been zoned for use, with 441,077 square feet of residential, and 376,707 square feet for either hotel, office, or retail use, documents show.

What does that mean? Only 817,784 is zoned for use? What's the leftover 250,000 zoned for, if not for "use?"

[chris08876]

^^^^^

The design is still occurring, so possibly the proportions of its function haven't been allocated yet. So it could change. Hotel vs residential vs retail (%/total sq-ft).

The amount of units is not known. 588 is an extrapolation but not precise.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

The design is still occurring, so possibly the proportions of its function haven't been allocated yet. So it could change. Hotel vs residential vs retail (%/total sq-ft).

The amount of units is not known. 588 is an extrapolation but not precise.

Yes, and look at the base. It's wider thant the supertall portion. NIMBYs may push the developer to build up from the entire base; i.e. a fat or longest 700 ft building rather than a 1400 foot tall skinny one. They were trying to push Silverstein to do that with his planned 1100 apartment tower in Hudson Yard.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

The design is still occurring, so possibly the proportions of its function haven't been allocated yet. So it could change. Hotel vs residential vs retail (%/total sq-ft).

The amount of units is not known. 588 is an extrapolation but not precise.

And sort of a ridiculous one, at that. There is no way the average unit size in a 1,400' luxury building is going to be 750 SF.

[chris08876]

Yeah the units will be much larger. This is not a budget tower like the one Silverstein wanted to build near HY that contained 1300+ units. I don't think the NIMBYS have much say. This tower is as of right, approved, happening, and all the NIMBYS can do in terms of design change is simply imagine it. This tower is not going to ruin the integrity of the area, it will only add to it. As I've said in the past, all of these residents complaining are self-centered folks that could give one hoot about the community, but instead, are concerned with their views. Towers will always rise, and with it, they are not the only ones who will lose views. Even the 57th Street tower owners will lose some views, and they paid tenfold what the units are going for in that area. Thats the trade off, but at the end of the day, the 1% should know their place, and be happy that they have a unit in Lower Manhattan.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Yeah the units will be much larger. This is not a budget tower like the one Silverstein wanted to build near HY that contained 1300+ units. I don't think the NIMBYS have much say. This tower is as of right, approved, happening, and all the NIMBYS can do in terms of design change is simply imagine it. This tower is not going to ruin the integrity of the area, it will only add to it. As I've said in the past, all of these residents complaining are self-centered folks that could give one hoot about the community, but instead, are concerned with their views. Towers will always rise, and with it, they are not the only ones who will lose views. Even the 57th Street tower owners will lose some views, and they paid tenfold what the units are going for in that area. Thats the trade off, but at the end of the day, the 1% should know their place, and be happy that they have a unit in Lower Manhattan.

My only beef with the tower is that the purchase of air rights from the other tax lots on the site means that there aren't development rights remaining for those surface lots fronting the Seaport. That is, they've moved the square footage off those sites and up into a tower, leaving the ground unoccupied. This is sort of terrible urbanism.

That, plus the fact that there will be two large buildings across Fletcher Street....18' or so from the face of this tower for its first ~600'.