# NEW YORK | The Spiral | 314m | 1031ft | 66 fl | T/O



## Vertical_Gotham

Tishman Speyer has acquired a site at 435 10th Ave. near Hudson Yards for what will be a 61 story $3.2 billion tower. No renders or detailed plans are available at this time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_Previously as..._

*THE HUDSON SPIRE*











Rendering of an imagined Hudson Spire at the Rosenthal site in Hudson Yards. Photo: MJM+A Archictects

*Major site for sale at the Hudson Yards -*
*The block-long parcel on Manhattan's far West Side could trade for more than $200 million and host the city's tallest skyscraper—and its neighbor might sell, too.*
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140110/REAL_ESTATE/140119991

 One of the largest development sites in Manhattan's Hudson Yards that could one day be home to the city's tallest skyscraper has hit the sales market.

The Rosenthal family has hired Massey Knakal Realty Services Chairman Bob Knakal and his colleague James Nelson to market a parcel it owns stretching from West 35th to West 34th streets between 10th Avenue and what will be a grand new thoroughfare running through the neighborhood called Hudson Boulevard. 

That parcel can accommodate as much *as 1.2 million square feet of space, including about 200,000 square feet of residential development.*

Mr. Knakal and James Nelson are focused on selling just the Rosenthals' half of the land, which could trade for more than $200 million and can host up to *1.2 million square feet of development as well as reach 1,800 feet in height. *


*Those* *parcels are located at:* 
*435 10th Ave.**, 507 W. 34th St. and 510-28 W. 35th St.*

------------------------------

Also, the site sits directly next to another similarly sized piece of land owned by *Sherwood Equities* at *447 Tenth Avenue*, which for years has planned to develop a single super-tower on the two parcels in partnership with the Rosenthals. Now that the Rosenthals are selling, Ryan Nelson (no relation to James), a senior vice president at Sherwood Equities who manages the company's acquisitions and sales, said it, too, will consider selling its parcel to either the buyer of the Rosenthal land or another purchaser.

*Together the two sites could allow for an 1,800-foot mega-tower nearly 2.5 million square feet in size—what would be the tallest, and one of the largest, buildings in the city.* 

Most of that structure would have to be for commercial use under the area's zoning, either office or hotel space, but it also could contain a substantial residential component as large as 400,000 square feet.

Ryan Nelson said that the two sites together, however, would appeal to major developers who want to have a presence in the Hudson Yards neighborhood, where millions of square feet of development are either underway or in the planning. "Together these sites are one of the best commercial development parcels in the area," he said.
 

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


















http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/02/new-renderings-hudson-spire.html









http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/02/new-renderings-hudson-spire.html


----------



## Xoltage

Blade Runner...


----------



## BlueBright

and i hope it gets developed to full potential,if hudson yars gets a signature tower consider it the heart of new york


----------



## TowerVerre:)

Hunser, your dream becomes reality 
Looks like it is arround 500m tall :cheers:


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Omg, yes. Supertall #29!


----------



## Funkyskunk2

1800ft/549m to roof 2132ft/650m to spire tip.

This needs to happen. I'd want a less haphazard design but the shape fits so well for such a huge height.


----------



## ZZ-II

The design would fit perfect, though it's probably just a concept at the moment.


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ Probably. The article certainly gives the impression that it is a concept.
Would be cool to have a megatall here though.


----------



## ZZ-II

Eric Offereins said:


> ^^ Probably. The article certainly gives the impression that it is a concept. Would be cool to have a megatall here though.


Including the spire it looks like at least 550m. A megatall for NYC would be so great!


----------



## RobertWalpole

Katz stated that his site alone could accommodate 2.5m sf:

http://media.crainsnewyork.com/vide...view-on-real-estate-jeff-katz-on-hudson-yards


----------



## rafark

Nice! Are all those renders real protects under construction?


----------



## RobertWalpole

They're all real and depict (primarily) Related's HY project.


----------



## nyc15

wow first megatall for new york city , that is great begin of 2014 ,i think that with spire make this taller than shanghai tower!
i hope that is real propose


----------



## tim1807

Well this would be f***ing great. Great design and location on the edge of the Hudson Yards, and it's slender so it doesn't need very much tenants.


----------



## RobertWalpole

It's over 2.5m sf, so it would require a big tenant commitment under normal circumstances. 

However, a Chinese fund could buy this and make a mixed use tower immediately. For example, China's consulate in NY is a lousy building in a lousy location that is not indicative of its power. The same is true with respect to their embassy to the UN. I could see them relocating both facilities to the most iconic tower in NY to herald their power. Secondly, the Chinese group that just bought JPM's Wall St tower said that he plans to keep it as offices, ad he said that Chinese conglomerates with little or no US presence will soon expand dramatically in NY. We know for a fact that the Chinese are about to engage in a massive spending spree in NY.


----------



## N.Y.C.H

droneriot said:


> We start threads on rumours and speculation now?


This has more chances of being built then half oc the proposed supertalls in this section, so please, get real.


----------



## tim1807

^^True, it already has a possible render, developers, and it definately wasn't proposed if there wasn't any need for at all.


----------



## ThatOneGuy

I knew this cluster needed something to top it off.

But I'm not too fond of the design...


----------



## RobertWalpole

That's not the design. It's just indicative of what can be built.


----------



## -Corey-

Wow amazing!!! In NYC anything can happen!!


----------



## Hudson11

RobertWalpole said:


> This is real. No one will forego those air rights. It would be like burning money.


then again, this is New York. I agree that this one has a real chance of being built. There's just some big IFs which need to occur first.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Yeah, guys. Nobody's debating that there are a bunch of air rights gathered here that somebody will develop at some point. But that doesn't make it a proposal. All we have at this point is that the site has hit the market (and for the right buyer, so will Sherwood's), which would mean this development is actually LESS far along than it was before. As in (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but) these guys were the developers, and are now selling, so until someone like Wanda comes along, there's NO DEVELOPER.

So, what, we're creating a thread for it because someone posted an article with some numbers to it that anyone could have pieced together from the zoning? Why don't we then create threads for every contiguous parcel in Manhattan, and do the math to list them by maximum allowable height?

Because that would mean a million threads is why.


----------



## Ghostface79

^^^I'm with you there. We should be able to differentiate between an actual proposal and a potential development. I think we could very well create a thread for the latter so not to make things too confusing....and not get ahead of ourselves.


----------



## RobertWalpole

MarshallKnight said:


> Yeah, guys. Nobody's debating that there are a bunch of air rights gathered here that somebody will develop at some point. But that doesn't make it a proposal. All we have at this point is that the site has hit the market (and for the right buyer, so will Sherwood's), which would mean this development is actually LESS far along than it was before. As in (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but) these guys were the developers, and are now selling...


Sherwood develops small, low-key projects in fringe areas (like this was). They have stated from day one that they are not in the business of building 300m+ towers and NEVER intended to develop a site with a 2.5m sf tower.

I can honestly see a Chinese company coming in and building now.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

MarshallKnight said:


> Yeah, guys. Nobody's debating that there are a bunch of air rights gathered here that somebody will develop at some point. But that doesn't make it a proposal. All we have at this point is that the site has hit the market (and for the right buyer, so will Sherwood's), which would mean this development is actually LESS far along than it was before. As in (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but) these guys were the developers, and are now selling, so until someone like Wanda comes along, there's NO DEVELOPER. So, what, we're creating a thread for it because someone posted an article with some numbers to it that anyone could have pieced together from the zoning? Why don't we then create threads for every contiguous parcel in Manhattan, and do the math to list them by maximum allowable height? Because that would mean a million threads is why.


True, I may have honestly jumped the gun with creating this thread. I apologize if this thread has ruffled some feathers & have no problem moving this thread and merge it back to 447 10th until lot has been purchased and merge everything back into a new thread when it warrants it. It's the Mods call.

With that said, I agree with RW that there is a real possibility that a foreign entity such as the Chinese could seriously make a play for this and ultimately Sherwood's. Sherwood IMO is in the business of investing and now may be a good time to put theirs in the market since their silent partner has decided to sell their half for an estimated $200m. I don't know how much either party paid for theirs but I'm sure they will get an amazing return. Frank McCourt just purchased 360 10th for $170 million so $200 m each seems fair market for the Rosenthal & Sherwood.

2013 has been amazing year with foreign entities investing in NYC and it is expected that 2014 will be in the stratosphere so we shall see. The Chinese most especially are expected to bring their investments to another level. 

A) At least we know once a sale has been made, another supertall has been identified for max 1,800 ft and that is w/o Sherwood's half.



> *Selling Just Rosenthals' half of the land, which could trade for more than $200 million and can host up to 1.2 Million square feet of development as well as reach 1,800 feet in height. (Nordstrom has 1.2 m sq ft*)


B) Now with the Two sites combined.



> *Together the Two sites could allow for an 1,800 foot mega tower nearly 2.5 million square feet in size - what would be the tallest and largest, buildings in the city. (1 WTC has 2.5 m sq ft)*


Both scenarios A and B can yield a 1,800 ft tower.


----------



## nyc15

1800 ft to the roof with spire can reach the 2132 ft,very nice to see a new tallest building in new york city!!!!
2014 skyscraper boom


----------



## Funkyskunk2

I actually think 1800 with 1.2 is a mistake. That would take one hell of a spire.


----------



## RobertWalpole

Sherwood's site alone has 2.5m sf:

http://media.crainsnewyork.com/vide...view-on-real-estate-jeff-katz-on-hudson-yards

Katz knows better than some reporter for Curbed does how much sf his site has.

As far as this thread being premature, what about the Chicago Post Office thread, the Chi "Realtor" tower thread, and the Seattle "pie in the sky" supertall thread, among others?


----------



## Ghostface79

For sure there a quite a few premature and mislabeled threads on this site, it doesn't mean we have to do as they do.
This is a very valid project to discuss, I just don't think it falls in the "proposed supertalls" category; but let's not make a big deal out of it, it's not like we're reporting for the Times.


----------



## meh_cd

RobertWalpole said:


> Sherwood's site alone has 2.5m sf:
> 
> http://media.crainsnewyork.com/vide...view-on-real-estate-jeff-katz-on-hudson-yards
> 
> Katz knows better than some reporter for Curbed does how much sf his site has.
> 
> As far as this thread being premature, what about the Chicago Post Office thread, the Chi "Realtor" tower thread, and the Seattle "pie in the sky" supertall thread, among others?


Close them too. I don't know why you have such a fixation with Chicago.


----------



## KillerZavatar

shouldn't the title be hudson spire? it is already confusing enough with the new york buildings that have no name, but the ones that have one should have it in the title


----------



## onewtclover

I'm looking at the building for the first time and already I love it! Even though the current "design" is just a placeholder, showing what could be built, I like it more than the Hudson Yards North and South Tower (I like those buildings, but the North is just a little too fat and the South is cute and compliments the North Tower, but wouldn't be great by itself). 

For it to be the tallest building in New York, it'd have to surpass 1 WTC (which is a confirmed 1,776 feet; I wonder how the 432 Park Avenue guys felt on November 12th!) So, It could be 1,777 feet for all that matters. And maybe they won't even add a spire, even though vanity height is a big thing worldwide. But if it's city's tallest building, it'd probably be a good 50 feet taller than 1 WTC, probably even more. So, if we have a 1,900 foot building by roof height, for example, New Yorkers would be thrilled too have a building like this.

But then again, let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height. And even if it does, it will never be a "serious" competitor in the world (let's say, top ten tallest buildings), because by the time this gets built, Kingdom Tower will almost be completed (and a bunch of other projects that have not been heard of as of early 2014).


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

onewtclover said:


> let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height.


I completely disagree!

If there is a plot in NYC to build a mega tower, The Hudson Yards is the place. 

The Far West Side of Manhattan is our gold rush as far as development. It's the Wild Wild West as this area had been rezoned to accommodate such projects as this. 

There are no Nimby's to contend with because this area is pretty barren with nothing to protect. "Development" here is not a bad word.

This piece of land is jackpot. As of right project with no landmark committees to contend with, etc. right in the middle of one of the most exciting and emerging land development in the world. 

This property will get snapped up quickly. This is the sort of project Gary Barnet would love. As of right development with no contention and already assembled.

360 Tenth Ave was bought by Frank McCourt for $170 million and Spitzer bought Alloys for $90 million when both properties where out in the market for 2-4 months tops only.


----------



## N.Y.C.H

onewtclover said:


> I'm looking at the building for the first time and already I love it! Even though the current "design" is just a placeholder, showing what could be built, I like it more than the Hudson Yards North and South Tower (I like those buildings, but the North is just a little too fat and the South is cute and compliments the North Tower, but wouldn't be great by itself).
> 
> For it to be the tallest building in New York, it'd have to surpass 1 WTC (which is a confirmed 1,776 feet; I wonder how the 432 Park Avenue guys felt on November 12th!) So, It could be 1,777 feet for all that matters. And maybe they won't even add a spire, even though vanity height is a big thing worldwide. But if it's city's tallest building, it'd probably be a good 50 feet taller than 1 WTC, probably even more. So, if we have a 1,900 foot building by roof height, for example, New Yorkers would be thrilled too have a building like this.
> 
> But then again, let us not just assume this will be built; I doubt that it will. 80 South Street has a better chance because of its shorter height. And even if it does, it will never be a "serious" competitor in the world (let's say, top ten tallest buildings), because by the time this gets built, Kingdom Tower will almost be completed (and a bunch of other projects that have not been heard of as of early 2014).


New Yorkers don't care about how tall a building is, neither does 98.7% of the rest of the world. The idea that everyone is fascinated with tall buildings or that all of New York would be lacking if it didn't have a top ten tallest building is ridiculous.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

KillerZavatar said:


> shouldn't the title be hudson spire? it is already confusing enough with the new york buildings that have no name, but the ones that have one should have it in the title


I think it's a perfect name for such a tower in the Yards. :cheers:


----------



## Manitopiaaa

If it wants Chinese tenants, maybe '8888 Hudson Spire' would be best.


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ just make it 666 meter tall. 6 is a lucky number.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Eric Offereins said:


> ^^ just make it 666 meter tall. 6 is a lucky number.


Better yet, 666 floors, 8888ft! :colgate:


----------



## L.A.F.2.

This is awesome! Great height, design, and location. What's not to love? If this gets built I'll be ecstatic.


----------



## Ghostface79

Barring another economic downturn, I don't see a scenario where someone wouldn't develop this site. I doubt there is anyone other site in the city that can offer you this amount of space, at that height, with much less hurdles and in a neighborhood that will be the next big thing in NYC. It's just a matter of which developer is looking for that trophy tower, and those aren't lacking in the city.


----------



## Funkyskunk2

iamtheSTIG requested this.










With Rey73's textured Nordstrom in the way:
http://i.imgur.com/mnoOwqG.jpg


----------



## PABLOEING

The king of the future new york.....this building is amazing


----------



## Skylimitone

That's a massive tower. I doubt we will see it anytime soon.


----------



## BlueBright

youd be surprised


----------



## nyc15

i think that with spire this tower will reach easily 2132ft !!!
it's very incredible to see this in 2020
i think that the midtown will take the title of king of new york from lower manhattan


----------



## Funkyskunk2




----------



## citybooster

So it appears the height is to roof, NOT including the spire.... either way I'd love it but PLEASE make it so, with a great design as well( though this one is very nice as a starting point)!


----------



## jackedi07

*Hudson Yards Site Could Host Supertall*
Two parcels of land in Hudson Yards, if developed together, could host a supertall tower that would surpass One World Trade Center at an astounding 549 meters. :cheers:

A parcel of land owned by the Rosenthal family, which stretches from West 35th to West 34th streets between 10th Avenue and the new thoroughfare Hudson Boulevard, is now on the market. Adjacent to the Rosenthal parcel is a site owned by Sherwood Equities, which may consider selling to the neighboring buyer. 

Major developers are attracted to the monumental potential of the Hudson Yards site. 

“Together these sites are one of the best commercial development parcels in the area,” said Ryan Nelson, senior vice president and manager of Sherwood Equities acquisitions and sales. 

The zoning of the parcels supports commercial, office, hotel, and up to 37,161 square meters of residential space, for a combined total of 111,484 square meters.

http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/1123/language/en-US/view.aspx#!


----------



## desertpunk

*Hudson Spire Brokerbabble*












> HUDSON YARDS—More details have emerged about the block-long development site near Hudson Yards that just hit the market. The gist is that whatever tower ends up rising there could be giant. By which we mean, up to 100 floors and 1,800 feet high, with 1.2 million square feet of residential, commercial/retail, and/or hotel space. Massey Knakal, which is selling the parcel, issued a release today: http://www.masseyknakal.com/pressrelease\635253094216605843.pdf (warning: PDF!) stating that "Hudson Spire" has an official address is 435 Tenth Avenue, facing the yet-to-be-created Hudson Boulevard, and runs from 501-507 West 34th Street to 510-528 West 35th Street. "Rarely does an opportunity become available to build a city's tallest tower, especially in New York City, which is known for its iconic buildings. The Hudson Spire could one day become the tallest building in the US, surpassing One World Trade Center," MK crows in its release. "An observation deck would be the ultimate addition."


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

That rendering by MJM+A architects was done only to depict the 1,800ft @ 1.2m sf tower because they were commissioned to imagine the full potential of this plot only which they are selling.

I would love to see a render of this Hudson Spire at 2.5 m sf, should Sherwood decides to sell their half. :cheers:


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Alright I cannot believe that VG, it is way too big. Does anyone know where the plot is divided? That looks like a full plot tower to me.


----------



## Ghostface79

I think VG is correct here, if you look at the site, you can clearly see that the tower only covers the left site of the parcel and the right site is left blank as if it isn't part of it, which is not the case when you look at the previous Sherwood proposal which included the whole site. So my guess is that they're clearly separating the 2 sites and the rendering is for a 1.2m sq/ft tower.

Sherwood's tower


----------



## -Corey-

Hudson Spire?? So that's the name the developer gave it?


----------



## Manitopiaaa

^^ There is no developer currently. It's more of a hazy vision than a proposal at this point. Hudson Spire is the name the land seller gave to it to stoke up visions of grandeur for would-be developers.


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ And the same goes for that 'design'. :|


----------



## RobertWalpole

desertpunk said:


> *Hudson Spire Brokerbabble*


Has anyone noticed that the boxy tower shown on the west side of Hudson Blvd is around 400m? I believe that it's the old "Javits Hotel" site.

P.S.:

This is the Chinese group that I referred to as a possible buyer for this site.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0902316499722?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLE_Video_second


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

RobertWalpole said:


> Has anyone noticed that the boxy tower shown on the west side of Hudson Blvd is around 400m? I believe that it's the old "Javits Hotel" site. P.S.: This is the Chinese group that I referred to as a possible buyer for this site. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303819704579320902316499722?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLE_Video_second


Are you referring the tower across (west) from the Hudson spire?? That's the Girasol.

Yea, I was thinking about the same thing when I read the WSJ article. This year we are going to hear a heck a lot of this kind of news! :cheers:


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Ghostface79 said:


> I think VG is correct here, if you look at the site, you can clearly see that the tower only covers the left site of the parcel and the right site is left blank as if it isn't part of it, which is not the case when you look at the previous Sherwood proposal which included the whole site. So my guess is that they're clearly separating the 2 sites and the rendering is for a 1.2m sq/ft tower.
> 
> Sherwood's tower
> [IG]Http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/4343/7455769367ed1dac6beofw2.jpg[/IMG]


If you are referring to the blue line at the base that is a result of the spectacularly shitty photoshop job it is.


----------



## Fabio1976

To change the title, please : 1800 foot and up 100 floors !!!


----------



## Birmingham

Terrific news. Is there any restrictions on heights in NYC? Or any stigma of building "too" tall?


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

sweet-d said:


> 1.2 million square feet isn't that much considering how tall this will be. Devon Tower has 1.8 million square feet and it's only 844 feet tall (257 m). It's actually kind of disappointing with that amount of square footage. But the render still looks really good.


 yea, it would be great if Sherwood also sells their half to the buyer too or offer a partnership to build the 2.5 msf super tower.


----------



## kingsc

This would be nice if it were real


----------



## nyc15

with this + 2000 feet tower ,the empire state building will lose domination from hudson river view
i have montined +2000ft because when added the spire can exceed this height
if you noticed they cut height of the north tower because the megatall comes !!!!
hope to see 2132ft!
1800ft is the roof and with spire is 2132ft nearly 650m


----------



## Winoc

Back on topic, I'm still feeling quite skeptical about this tower being 1,800ft. My guess is that they will make it a short, fat one like 50 Hudson blvd unless recent height decreases to 30 Hudson mean that the obs. deck is about to be moved to 50 Hudson blvd...

*IF* 50 Hudson blvd is radically redesigned though, you can bet that any developer of this potetial tower will do everything in their power to exceed it.


----------



## citybooster

Oh please don't be so depressing....... I think something really big will get built here, most simply because of all he available spaces to go higher than the Central Park area towers(and at best we'll only have five or six supertalls in my opinion in that immediate area that are effectively spread out to avoid the wrath of the shadow busting Central Park NIMBYs) there is the wide open spaces of the West Side... they'll maximize this one and hopefully get better designs for the two other Hudson Yards area towers... the third one, not officially HY because Related doesn't own the property, is the Girasole and that will be a great addition. Hopefully gets a little taller too(currently listed as 1,050 ft) but a beautiful proposal right now as is.


----------



## onewtclover

If this thing gets built (which I doubt it will), it'd be a HUGE thing for America because I think we all know they can only get so far in global building competition in terms of height. I found one more "rendering", not sure if it's been posted but it's worth a repost:










I think it's going to be at LEAST a good 20 years before a tower rises that's taller than 1 WTC. Whether this building gets built or not will be a really interesting topic. In other words, I don't think this'll get built, but I hope it does.


----------



## Guy Noir

Not crazy about the placeholder. Looking forward to seeing an actual design.

NY's Supertall boom is great, but I've been eager to see a SuperMegafragilistic Something go up. Does that 2000' limit cover all of Manhattan Island?


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Guy Noir said:


> Not crazy about the placeholder. Looking forward to seeing an actual design.
> 
> NY's Supertall boom is great, but I've been eager to see a SuperMegafragilistic Something go up. Does that 2000' limit cover all of Manhattan Island?


All of USA.



Winoc said:


> ^^
> Hey nyc15 -AKA- usafarid, weren't you banned?
> 
> Back on topic, I'm still feeling quite skeptical about this tower being 1,800ft. My guess is that they will make it a short, fat one like 50 Hudson blvd unless recent height decreases to 30 Hudson mean that the obs. deck is about to be moved to 50 Hudson blvd...
> 
> *IF* 50 Hudson blvd is radically redesigned though, you can bet that any developer of this potetial tower will do everything in their power to exceed it.


This has some residential which would make the top fairly thin even if they went as economical ass possible like 50 hy.


----------



## N.Y.C.H

If this doesn't go through, still a step in the right direction for them to even consider something taller then 1 WTC.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

N.Y.C.H said:


> If this doesn't go through, still a step in the right direction for them to even consider something taller then 1 WTC.


If 1,800' doesn't go, this will end up being the height the Nordstrom is supposed to be which is 1550' to the roof at least. The Hudson Spire has the same 1.5 msf as the Nordstrom and since this is marketed as the Hudson Spire this thing should have a spire which can take it just short of 1776', but this will be good enough to take the roof height crown in the US. That would be good enough for me and this will be the jewel of the Yards and maybe of the city.

Although I can definitely see a really ambitious developer from somewhere in this world to build this to its full potential so he can puff out his chest and say I'm the man in the biggest stage in the world. :cheers:


----------



## onewtclover

I thought the Nordstrom Tower is 1550 to the roof at most. But I'm not sure the phrase "to the roof" will affect much, because the current design doesn't have a spire (and I'm not sure it will have any vanity height). I'd rather this building have a height decrease than be cancelled.


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Nordstrom had tallest floor filed at 1550ft. Roof would have been taller. Hell still could be who knows what's next.


----------



## germantower

patrykus said:


> I see realty agents are doing great job advertising this site. What I don't get is why someone made thread in Proposed Supertalls for an empty plot. *But whatever. What I think is that tower at this plot have no chance going as tall as advertised.* What is happening right now is clearly an advertising campaign. So obviously they throw numbers much bigger than the actual developer would go with. And so far it works for imagination it seems. At least here everyone's going mental about it


Why do you think so?


----------



## RobertWalpole

There is no conceivable way that this tower will be less than 300m. No one will sacrifice air rights.:lol:


----------



## patrykus

Of course anything that will be build there will be a supertall. But I'm quite positive it have little chance reaching that 550m mark. It is a maximum theoretic height envisioned by the *sellers of the plot*, not the developer, who will be most likely more focused on feasibility than on the height, hence the final product will be very likely lower than that.


----------



## RobertWalpole

I agree.


----------



## Trex-md

I was just in Washington and I was discussing the 2000 ft height limit with an amigo in the FAA. Apparently, it's not inconceivable that the hight limit could be reversed if the top of a structure were to be equipped with lights that emit enough lumens to penetrate dense fog/ clouds up to 15 miles... Allowing a pilot to maneuver the craft to avoid a mid-air collision.


----------



## Hudson11

Trex-md said:


> I was just in Washington and I was discussing the 2000 ft height limit with an amigo in the FAA. Apparently, it's not inconceivable that the hight limit could be reversed if the top of a structure were to be equipped with lights that emit enough lumens to penetrate dense fog/ clouds up to 15 miles... Allowing a pilot to maneuver the craft to avoid a mid-air collision.


i'm sure there are ways around the height limit, which would probably involve making the top of the structure obvious enough to see at day and night. This probably includes extra warning lights and paint schemes/ other forms of lighting.


----------



## droneriot

Or pilots could just stop flying their planes at 600m altitude over Manhattan.


----------



## germantower

I have a feeling some people still don´t get what is currently happening in NYC, what it means to have unlimited air rights, and especially what a gargantuan momentum and potential the west side has. The phase one is just a small teaser of what will come. And i am sure this area will house a building no one expects in NYC. Lets go back 5 years ago and imagine saying to someone what will happen on the 57th street what is happening now. This city finally unleashes it´s beast and goes the crazy way it should have for decades.


----------



## 3tmk

Horrible location to add yet more skyscrapers. The traffic is close to a standstill already around the congested lincoln tunnel, and they want to add this thing, on top of the massive hudson yards projects?
I hope they'll have a helipad on the roof because that would be the only way they'll be able to move.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

^^Horrible location?? All of midtown is inescapable of standstill traffic. Where would you like this skyscraper to be built? Harlem? 

The whole Hudson Yards enchilada has commenced and there will be plenty more skyscrapers to come in this area. 

The one way to relieve the traffic is congestion pricing proposed by the Bloomberg Administration. This may be the only way to solve this issue in a growing city at the same time upgrading it’s infrastructure like what is already being done with the #7 extension and hopefully ultimately extending it to Jersey.


----------



## 3tmk

Vertical_Gotham said:


> ^^Horrible location?? All of midtown is inescapable of standstill traffic. Where would you like this skyscraper to be built? Harlem?
> 
> The whole Hudson Yards enchilada has commenced and there will be plenty more skyscrapers to come in this area.
> 
> The one way to relieve the traffic is congestion pricing proposed by the Bloomberg Administration. This may be the only way to solve this issue in a growing city at the same time upgrading it’s infrastructure like what is already being done with the #7 extension and hopefully ultimately extending it to Jersey.


This is more than just midtown.
That location is particularly horrible because of the Lincoln tunnel and as a north-south axis on the west side.
They should think of ways to alleviate the congestion first before making their innumerable grandiose plans in that neighborhood. The hours I've spent stuck in traffic because of those damn tunnels. And they want to dump a huge new residential/office neighborhood, and on top of that, developers want to grab everything around the hudson yards like this project.
I'm sure they'll enjoy having the mile long line of buses making their way around to the PA.


----------



## j-biz

^^ Hey 3tmk, get out of your car!!


----------



## 3tmk

haha I rarely if ever drive, and that's my point of how horrible that place is. Because in the end, it is a main thoroughfare, badly planned, lacking the appropriate infrastructure, and this will only exacerbate the problem by dumping so much more activity. The area itself is empty, but for those trying to get through it, it is hell, and you cannot block a vital point of access like the holland tunnel.
When you look at the East side access tunnel being further delayed, yet the rush to develop these new residential areas makes me wonder what our city's priority is.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

3tmk said:


> makes me wonder what our city's priority is.


The city's priority is growth and to have less people taking their cars in the city and encourage people to use the public transportation system. 

It's really wise you elect not to drive in to avoid the headache of traffic. That is what the city wants and that is their #1 weopon used as a deterrent to stop people taking their cars.

Why did the city create pedestrian plazas when it would only exacerbate the problem? Tolls to cross are expensive, they award drivers with big discounts for car pooling and the next step may be congestion pricing to make it too expensive for people to bring in their cars during peak hours. 

It's like the cigarette tax in NYC. Make it too expensive to get people to quit. Congesting pricing and all other factors mentioned would get people to quit bringing their cars into the city. All of these factors will achieve the city's priority.


----------



## Eric Offereins

RobertWalpole said:


> Given the interest of Chinese investors in the de facto capital, I can see the China Spire rising!
> 
> http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/01/24/by-the-numbers-counting-chinese-cash/


I can see a lot of speculation in this thread. :|
I hope you're right though. :cheers:


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

RobertWalpole said:


> It's entirely possible that Related will buy the site and build a 350m tower, but it's also very possible that the Chinese will, particularly given the turbulence in EM.


Exactly because of the uncertainty in the EM, it's all more the reason for the Chinese to invest in places that are more stable. A lot of the Chinese investments already made overseas the past couple of years was probably done in anticipation of expectations of a slower Chinese economy.

As for Related buying this site, it would be my preference they do not IMO. Related would most likely not build a tower higher than their trophy tower, 30 Hudson Yards. Plus if another entity buys this Spire site, we would see something here rise quicker & taller than if it was Related. 

They have too much on their plate as it is especially with 50, 55 and that adjacent site next to Spitzer that are zoned for commercial office space.


----------



## baseball1992

That original design wasn't the full 2.5 mil sq ft right?


----------



## Funkyskunk2

baseball1992 said:


> That original design wasn't the full 2.5 mil sq ft right?


That's what they said though I do not believe it.


----------



## Kanzyo Oliveira

I do not think it takes much to lift his first New York building over 800 meters. Already have 2 with 500 ...


----------



## j-biz

Chinese cash flow!

*101 Bedford Opens Last Leases; Int'l Developers Seek Anything*

Friday, January 24, 2014, by Zoe Rosenberg



> Brokerage firm Nestseekers has sent out a plea on behalf of a client looking to buy ...anything:
> 
> Hello, We represent a private Chinese corporation that will arrange 700 million USD to purchase a development land parcel to construct a mixed use or a residential building(must be 100,000+ buildable sq ft) in NYC(Manhattan only), San Francisco or Los Angeles.


----------



## Eric Offereins

Cool. That could be the start of something.


----------



## Jim856796

If I had my way, I should have had a skyscraper that is 500-metres to the roof within the Hudson Yards redevelopment area. I thought about 30 Hudson Yards being increased to 500 metres for awhile, because I doubted there would be enough space for a completely new tower with such a height.

But I guess the "Height Just to Impress" game probably isn't beneficial; no offense to anyone here.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

amazing design and I love the idea of a tower there. It will make this whole area complete with the really dominant alpha tower. great idea


----------



## RobertWalpole

Build the China Spire!

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/01/28/cbres-stacom-says-overseas-investment-is-peaking-video/


----------



## Hudson11

If a Chinese form does end up acquiring this site I hope they come up with a better name than China 'Spire'.


----------



## Hudson11

^^ better. 
it's just personal preference, I don't like calling whole buildings spires. Just the pointy crowns on top


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica

MarshallKnight said:


> ^^ Right! Although, while that would be awesome for skyscraper enthusiasts, I'm not sure it totally sits right with me as an American.


There is symbolic for those that want to see a symbolic to it, but at the end it does not mean much. The largest tower in China, the SWFC in Shanghai was built by a Japanese developer together with American and European investors.

At the end of the day, it is just a building. Business as usual.


----------



## Guy Noir

Ulpia-Serdica said:


> There is symbolic for those that want to see a symbolic to it, but at the end it does not mean much. The largest tower in China, the SWFC in Shanghai was built by a Japanese developer together with American and European investors.
> 
> At the end of the day, it is just a building. Business as usual.


As I recall, the Chinese made him change the design to turn the original circular hole into a square -- specifically because they felt the circle was reminiscent of the Japanese flag.


----------



## Jay

Who cares who builds it? It's a supertall in NYC, like someone brought up earlier, SWFC was built by the Japanese, the new tallest building in LA by the Koreans... it doesn't really matter.


----------



## N.Y.C.H

ophizer said:


> so to summarize the argument from the last two pages:
> 
> if we can't compete, let's make it impossible for the other guy to do anything either
> 
> what happened to this country


Its a building, no one outside of this forum really cares, or has ever even heard of a supertall and or megatall. They just call it tall.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

I think some people are missing the point here. It's not about competing, because we all know American developers are not racing to build the worlds tallest these days or even the nations tallest on our soil. Sears tower until the new WTC took how many years?? The only reason WTC is the nations tallest today is because the developer/ architects wanted to build a tower in response to that horrid events that took place on 9/11. The plan from its inception was to build a tower at a symbolic height of 1776 which represents the day our country won its freedom. This is the only reason WTC has unseated the Sears. If it where not for 9/11, the Sears/Willis would still reign supreme today.

So if we are going to have a tower reach 1,800 + ft especially in New York, the best bet would probably be from a foreign entity that wants to stake a claim in the US, because American developers will only be thinking about the bottom line. Developments here are all about maximizing profits and nothing else. 

Sure it would be nice to build such a tower with reckless abandon just to puff out our chest to the rest of the world but it ain't gonna happen because developers learned from the mistakes from the past. How long do you think it would take to have full occupancy in such a tower? It will take many YEARS for them to recoup their money.


----------



## Сталин

SomeKindOfBug said:


> I'm just saying the American public might. Or rather, the American press might make it seem like they do. Remember the ground zero mosque nonsense?


 How is having the owner's of a supertall in NYC being Chinese the same as having a loudpeaker blaring mosque near ground Zero? 

I doubt anyone will even notice who the owners are, or care. Also I'm pretty sure most Americans have no idea who owns the ESB, or any other skyscrapers in NYC. 

Not to add, why wouldn't the American public not like this? It's more cash that flows into NYC, and not other countries, so its more beneficial to Americans anyway.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

China's investments in the US are growing. Should we be concerned?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/24/chinese-investment-growing-us-good


----------



## Chad

The US should be even more concerned when there is no Chinese investment at all...


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

BlueBright said:


> ^exactly ,but whos to say the Chinese developer will name it with an eastern name?


Perhaps they could go the way the Chinese seem to do with their rollercoasters? Give it an extremely generic English Name ("Tall building") and a Chinese name that when translated only makes sense in context of some obscure folklore ("Tower of heavenly plastic rabbit flying over the avocado plantation").

For examples of coasters, see http://rcdb.com/r.htm?order=-23&ot=2&nm=na&pl=26380&page=2


----------



## MarshallKnight

Really, won't the developers most likely sell the naming rights to their anchor tenant, Chinese or American?


----------



## ILNY




----------



## RobertWalpole

The transformation of this area from a dump to a showcase is extraordinary.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Vertical_Gotham said:


> China's investments in the US are growing. Should we be concerned?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/24/chinese-investment-growing-us-good


I don't think so and I tell you why. Chinese accumulated close to 3 trillion $ in their hands. In reality they can't spend it on anything unless all of a sudden they will just decide to buy thousands of US airplanes or US made machinery. We all know they will not going to do this. So American debt in China is sort of a dead weight since they can't get gold in return for the paper and they can't / won't buy anything American made. So the way out is to invest in America in some factories or real estate. 

So I see it as a payment can be bitch sometimes, since Chinese are in dire straights with all this huge amount of paper. They can't spend it, can't get gold it, they can't even sell so much dollars because it will raise any other currency to unimaginable heights and thus make it extremely expensive, while US dollar will only loose about 15-20% of its value, which is not that tragic, given the fact that our production will get a huge boost from cheap currency.

So it is the same crap that happen to Japanese in the end of 80s. They had plenty of dollars and didn't know what to do with it unless they invest it back into USA. All chickens come home to roost. :banana:


----------



## Red85

RobertWalpole said:


> The transformation of this area from a dump to a showcase is extraordinary.


New York needs these dumps as well. Part of the city. A blink of history.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Red85 said:


> New York needs these dumps as well. Part of the city. A blink of history.


there are plenty of them left in Bronx, Queens and etc


----------



## Lowkey Lion

Chad said:


> The US should be even more concerned when there is no Chinese investment at all...


Exactly.

Bring on the yuans!


----------



## LouDagreat

CIC North American Spire is a fine international tower name.

All I care about is design. If its a big glass box. **** it. Don't build it.


----------



## Arawooho

Can we please keep the McDonald's? It's the only drive thru in Manhattan.


----------



## RobertWalpole

This amazing view is about to change dramatically! 

As if this incomparable forest were not enough, it will add:

1. Nordstrom 1400'+
2. 432 Park 1,398'
3. Steinway 1,350'
4. 1 Vanderbilt 1,250'
5. Time Warner 1,225'
6. Verre 1,050'
7. Equinox 1,000'
8. 220 CPS 950'
9. 30 Park Place 935'
10. Culture Tower 915'
11. Girasole 1,035'

Yet to come:

11. Park Lane
12. 650 Madison
13. 31 W 57th
14. Hudson Spire
15. McD Tower.









SamHorine


----------



## Riley1066

Arawooho said:


> Can we please keep the McDonald's? It's the only drive thru in Manhattan.


The Five Guys on West 34th is so much better though


----------



## Eric Offereins

RobertWalpole said:


> This amazing view is about to change dramatically!
> 
> ..


Haven't I seen this post before? :|


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

*The Hudson Spire*
https://my.rcm1.com/handler/teaser.aspx?pv=3BxegUvguw_VGzRf6fu-dJ3Y40CZsunlI1R9o2FxfFfHqq5Bl-qVLkrU41GzeLQZ

In link there is a image of the imagined base of the Hudson Spire. Sorry I could not grab the pic to post. :cheers:


----------



## tim1807

^^


----------



## hunser

I don't know why but I have a good feeling about this. The Hudson Yards site is just perfect for a new tallest.


----------



## LastConformist

Arawooho said:


> Can we please keep the McDonald's? It's the only drive thru in Manhattan.


That's as good a reason as any to get rid of it. No drive-through anything should be allowed in Manhattan.


----------



## RobertWalpole

This area really has been a rank slum for so long. Last April, I was walking through the area on my way to Javits. I told my wife about all of the great projects planned for the area and how it would be transformed from a colossal dump to a showcase, and she thought I was nuts.

It's really hard to fathom.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

RobertWalpole said:


> This area really has been a rank slum for so long. Last April, I was walking through the area on my way to Javits. I told my wife about all of the great projects planned for the area and how it would be transformed from a colossal dump to a showcase, and she thought I was nuts.


Yea I tell everyone about the Yards, I tell my friends, family , co-workers and anyone who would listen. Lol.

they are all like wow and stunned. Funny, the majority of New Yorkers don't even know what's coming. #truth

This place will be turned upside down. :cheers:


----------



## RobertWalpole

That's true. Most New Yorkers presently don't go to that area and have no idea what's in store.


----------



## hunser

108 floors and 1,800ft would be great. :drool:


----------



## Architecture lover

Edit.


----------



## BlueBright

will somebody please build this...haha


----------



## Fabio1976

I hope that there will be 108 REAL floors and not as the floors of the 1 WTC ( 85 Real floors ,not 104 ) !!!!!


----------



## hunser

^ There are far bigger cheaters than 1WTC (94 real floors) out there. 

Anyway, http://www.masseyknakal.com/listing...&ptc=&prc=&pi=0&ps=10&tpg=41&s=0&ty=6&r=1&tt=


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Finally a render. Can't believe it is that thin, do companies even want office space like that?


----------



## Xoltage

RobertWalpole said:


> This amazing view is about to change dramatically!
> 
> As if this incomparable forest were not enough, it will add:
> 
> 1. Nordstrom 1400'+
> 2. 432 Park 1,398'
> 3. Steinway 1,350'
> 4. 1 Vanderbilt 1,250'
> 5. Time Warner 1,225'
> 6. Verre 1,050'
> 7. Equinox 1,000'
> 8. 220 CPS 950'
> 9. 30 Park Place 935'
> 10. Culture Tower 915'
> 11. Girasole 1,035'
> 
> Yet to come:
> 
> 11. Park Lane
> 12. 650 Madison
> 13. 31 W 57th
> 14. Hudson Spire
> 15. McD Tower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SamHorine


Bad photoshop, but here you go..


----------



## Manitopiaaa

hunser said:


> ^ There are far bigger cheaters than 1WTC (94 real floors) out there.
> 
> Anyway, http://www.masseyknakal.com/listing...&ptc=&prc=&pi=0&ps=10&tpg=41&s=0&ty=6&r=1&tt=


Looks a lot like Eureka Tower in that posted pic. I hope they go with a design like this.


----------



## Jay

Xoltage said:


> Bad photoshop, but here you go..


YES PLEASE! It's not bad it looks amazing, I can't believe NY could actually look like that within the next decade.


----------



## RobertWalpole

Funkyskunk2 said:


> Finally a render. Can't believe it is that thin, do companies even want office space like that?


I'm sure that you know, but just to clarify, that is not a rendering of what will be built here.


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Yes but it just seems so silly to advertise the potential of 1800 ft without using the entire plot. A residential tower on 57th? Sure. A mostly office building on Hudson Boulevard after seeing how fat 50 HY is? Nope.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Me likes!

*New Renderings: Hudson Spire - read in link*
http://newyorkyimby.com/2014/02/new-renderings-hudson-spire.html#











Great location at 34th street and on the Hudson Boulevard - check
Half a block from the #7 station - check
Block away from Hudson Yards public square - check
No assembly required - check
Air rights gift wrap for 1,800 ft - check

*Optional for the buyer* - ability to increase sq footage for development from 1.2 msf to 2.5 msf, by either buying adjacent lot or possibly partner with in this emerging city in the Hudson Yards. 

I co-sign and fully endorse.


----------



## citybooster

So far, it's just conceptual... obviously there will be a lot of changes made, this is more just showing the kind of impact and scope the building may have. If they do an observation deck like it was referenced as a possibility in the firm's description of the project it will be more orgasmic than the best sex! I really believe that something of a scale of 1,800 ft or so will actually get done here, the momentum for it plus it being the only location in New York City something that high can go up without scores of NIMBYs crying out in protest. I'm even getting the feeling we can se a couple more 1,500 footers in the Hudson Yards Boulevard area.... the Manhattan skyline ten years from now, as great as it is today, with the Central Park towers plus the whole West Side rising will be breathtaking!


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

*Meet Hudson Spire, The U.S.'s 'Potential Future Tallest Tower'*
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/06/meet_hudson_spire_the_uss_potential_future_tallest_tower.php












> Brokerage Massey Knakal continues its quest to sell a block-long development site near Hudson Yards by touting the possibility that the "potential future tallest tower in the U.S." could rise there. For its newest round-up of marketing materials, first spotted by *NY YIMBY*





> MK commissioned some new renderings from MJM + A Architects of what such a superscraper, at 435 Tenth Avenue between 34th and 35th streets, might look like.





> The purely theoretical superscraper—which even has a name, Hudson Spire—that a developer *could erect could total 1.22 million square feet, with 108 floors and a height of over 1,800 feet*. MK is also touting *residences from the 80th to 108th floors, and an observation deck. *


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

the man from k-town said:


> so it is a official proposal. congrats NYC! Makes the city even more fantastic!


Yes it's official. In 4 months. Bank on it.


----------



## tim1807

Those corners are a nice touch.


----------



## Chris666

strange...though the Hudson spire could be the highest buildung in nyc...it seems not so high...perhaps of the form...it fits very good to the big apple


----------



## Architecture lover

Edit.


----------



## Yellow Fever

enough! stop trolling or we will start giving out infraction.


----------



## Trex-md

If a tower is built on this scope it will truly usher New York City into the 21st century. The World Trade Center is being reconstructed, but the complex has existed since the early 1970s and by the time hudson yards is completed the Empire State Building will be nearly a century old. A new megatall is what this city needs to cement it's status as the A++ city among the rising stars of the east.


----------



## skyperu34

Looks really good and beautiful, hope to see it built as NYC skyline deserves such a great addition...


----------



## Chad

Hudson11 said:


> http://mjmacalusoblog.com/


That Zig-Zag pattern reminds me a lot of This building by SOM


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ I love that building (what's the name?), and would be happy to see something similar rise here someday. It's certainly sleek enough to fit in with the other ultra-modern towers on the Far West Side... but there's also something industrial to it that feels appropriate for the area around the repurposed rail yards.


----------



## Ivanator

^^ It is the Zifeng tower in Nanjing if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## t94

MarshallKnight said:


> ^^ I love that building (what's the name?), and would be happy to see something similar rise here someday. It's certainly sleek enough to fit in with the other ultra-modern towers on the Far West Side... but there's also something industrial to it that feels appropriate for the area around the repurposed rail yards.


http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=24626


----------



## JohnFlint1985

The idea of the tower is pretty good, it is just we need to find out our and developer's resolve to go over the symbolic height of 1776 ft. Though I think it is long overdue to change maximum restrictions of height from 2000 ft to 3000 ft. it is ridiculous that we are stuck in 1930s with these rules.


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

An FAA height increase would only be 'overdue' if projects have been cancelled because they were limited to 2000ft. I don't think a single tower in the US has a: been seriously proposed for over 2000ft, or b: had a financial need/viability to go over 2000ft but hasn't progressed because of this limit.

The truth of the matter is the 2000ft limit (which isn't really a limit, as the FAA has discretionary powers to allow structures over that height anyway) only exists because there's no reason to change it.

Nobody is clamoring for it to be changed because nobody is building, or planning to build, anything over 2000ft. So why contest it?

The moment a serious developer comes along with the financial need to build over 2000ft (which would only ever be in Manhattan because of density. Which would then be denied anyway because of NYCs overly crowded airspace and a history of plane strikes) then the issue will be looked at and probably updated.

The only structures intersecting this limit right now are radio masts and there's a real and actual need to be considerate with their height due to small aircraft and other such things colliding with these less visible structures in the middle of Goddamn nowhere.

If some Saudi Oil baron, or a Chinese dictator, or perhaps some American real estate mogul, wanted to build a Tower of Babel in the middle of downtown Manhattan. And they wanted to go over 2000ft. Then by the very outline of their ambition they would get it done. If you have enough money to build a tower that is 2000ft high, then you must also have enough money to hire some good lobbyists to get it done. This is a non issue. It's used to excuse the widening gap between tall buildings abroad and the (perceived) stagnation in the US. It's a misdirect to cover up the terrible human rights issues in the countries that _can _build such monoliths.


----------



## Bolzeng

Future skyline.
Not 100% correct.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

*MJM + A Architects Unveil Design for Hudson Spire –The Tallest Building in North America 

1,800 foot multi-use luxury commercial and residential tower will be an integral part of NYC’s Hudson Yards Development. Tower will also be as the largest building in North America. *
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11578927.htm



> New York, NY (PRWEB) February 17, 2014
> 
> MJM + A Architects PLLC, an award-winning Manhattan-based architectural practice, recently unveiled their plans for the construction of Hudson Spire, a *110 story, 1,800 foot tall tower* that would become the tallest building in North America.
> 
> The structure will include approximately *1.2 million square feet for high-end retail, office, hotels, and residences* in the heart of Hudson Yards, a dynamic new neighborhood and cultural center in development on 10th Avenue from 34th to 40th Street, on the site of what was formerly the West Side Rail Yards. Hudson Spire would be on a section of the new Hudson Boulevard, overlooking a park-like public space that is the centerpiece of the neighborhood. The building will face the Hudson River and be less than two blocks from the Jacob Javits Convention Center.
> 
> Michael J. Macaluso, Principal and Founder of MJM + A Architects, was retained by the property owners and their exclusive real estate broker Massey Knakal to come up with a grand design for the building. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that architects dream of,” says Macaluso. “When the senior executives of Massey Knakal, James Nelson and Bob Knakal, and Anthony Volpe of the Rosenthal Group first laid out for us the challenge of creating an 1,800 foot high mixed-use tower for Hudson Yards, we were both thrilled and inspired. As architects, our job is to interpret the dreams of others. The creative geniuses of our design studio, led by my partner Keith Lucas, came up with a stunning vision of a vibrant glass structure that literally jumps from its bases and soars to the stars.”
> 
> Hudson Spire is slated to have *110 stories*, offering a unique combination of commercial and residential space. *Floors one through five will host upscale restaurants and retailers, on top of which will be 15 stories of office space. Floors 21through 85 are designated for three separate high-end hotel properties, each with approximately 200 guest rooms, lavish amenities, and event/conference space. The top 25 floors will be luxury residences, with one or two units per floor*, concierge service, private elevators, glass walls on all four sides, and stunning views that extend from the Statue of Liberty to the George Washington Bridge and beyond.
> 
> “Hudson Yard represents the last frontier in undeveloped Manhattan property,” says Macaluso, “and Hudson Spire will be right in the middle of this dynamic new neighborhood with all its cultural attractions, entertainment, and river views. And its close proximity to the Javits Center makes it an excellent choice for Fortune 500 executive travelers.”
> more
> 
> Design-wise, Hudson Spire follows the “super tall / super thin” strategy of other recent luxury high rise residences, mandated by the space, cost and zoning realities of Manhattan property. *Starting at a base width of approximately 100 feet, the edifice will be physically set back as it rises, tapering to just 75 feet in width at the top floors.* The structural challenges of high winds and complex elevator requirements are solved with a hybrid reinforced concrete and steel frame, encased by alternating reflective and non-reflective high powered glass.
> 
> “There’s not a lot of façade to work with,” says Keith M. Lucas, Partner and Project Designer for MJM + A Architects, “so we wanted to make it visually interesting. We decided, rather than go with a typical singular surface, let’s do something different and more dynamic. Let’s vary the composition of the glass color and reflective property, with lots of intersecting angles that play off one another, so that sunsets and city views will look different on one face of the building than on the others.”
> 
> At 1,800 feet, Hudson Spire will be even taller than the recently-constructed Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center. “Since 9/11, the city has gone through a long healing process. The owners of the property want to create a building that looks forward, not back, that will uplift the city but is unrelated to 9/11,” says Macaluso. “Hudson Spire reflects the dawn of a new age, emphasizing the global character of New York City as a business hub, a tourist destination, and the many foreign residents who now call it home. Hudson Spire will be a welcome addition to the Manhattan skyline, and to the spirit of the city itself.”
> 
> For more information, contact Ron Gold, MarketingWorks PR at (631) 941-1100. To view architectural renderings of Hudson Spire, go to http://tinyurl.com/jw9omjf.












Oh the possibilities! If I had to make just one wish with the Skyscraper Gods! This would be it. It would be a fantastic center piece in the emerging Hudson Yards.

Obviously because of the smaller floor plates, the kind of offices they could offer would be for Hedge funders, Law firms and Technology firms & maybe some foreign gov't offices. 

So here's my wish...

I wish for a ambitious foreign entity to buy this plot asap and use this design with a few modifications here and there. What an opportunity it will be to build an icon for NYC. :cheers:


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Bolzeng said:


> Future skyline.
> Not 100% correct.


 The Hudson Yards should be located on the South side of the Empire State Building, except for the Spire (should be located on the North side of 34th street).


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

No he's placed them correctly. The perspective is fooling you there.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

SomeKindOfBug said:


> No he's placed them correctly. The perspective is fooling you there.


 You're right! My bad. it did fool me. lol


----------



## citybooster

Vertical_Gotham said:


> *MJM + A Architects Unveil Design for Hudson Spire –The Tallest Building in North America
> 
> 1,800 foot multi-use luxury commercial and residential tower will be an integral part of NYC’s Hudson Yards Development. Tower will also be as the largest building in North America. *
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11578927.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the possibilities! If I had to make just one wish with the Skyscraper Gods! This would be it. It would be a fantastic center piece in the emerging Hudson Yards.
> 
> Obviously because of the smaller floor plates, the kind of offices they could offer would be for Hedge funders, Law firms and Technology firms & maybe some foreign gov't offices.
> 
> So here's my wish...
> 
> I wish for a ambitious foreign entity to buy this plot asap and use this design with a few modifications here and there. What an opportunity it will be to build an icon for NYC. :cheers:


 So essentially it's ready to go... just needs a developer! It could be closer to reality than people realize...and with the Sherman site across the street that can go 1,300-1,400 ft... wow what awesome possibilities for that area!!!!!! There HAS to be some ambitious developer who realizes what a coup having the tallest building in North America, right in midtown Manhattan, would be!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jay

Obviously 1800 to the top of the spire but thats still insanely tall... maybe 15 or 1600 to the roof


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

*TheHudsonSpire.com*
http://thehudsonspire.com/

*The Opportunity*









*New Heights*


----------



## desertpunk

Call now! Operators are standing by!


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

RobertWalpole said:


> This site's potential obviously depends on the developer. If it's developed by a NY company, it will be at least 350m, but probably not much higher than 400m. If it's developed by a Chinese or Middle Eastern developer, then the sky's the limit!


Yep totally agree. We need an outsider to make this tower go iconic.


----------



## nyc15

i think that 1800ft is the roof height , imagine that we added a spire same height of one world trade center spire ,it will make hudson spire a 2208 ft tower!!!

i hope that the dream become the reality


----------



## webeagle12

nyc15 said:


> i think that 1800ft is the roof height , imagine that we added a spire same height of one world trade center spire ,it will make hudson spire a 2208 ft tower!!!
> 
> i hope that the dream become the reality


FAA will not let you build anything in NY above 2000 feet. That a promise


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Without permission. Getting past FAA's restriction would be a hell of a lot easier than getting such a structure built in the first place.


----------



## webeagle12

Funkyskunk2 said:


> Without permission. Getting past FAA's restriction would be a hell of a lot easier than getting such a structure built in the first place.


That what you think :tongue2:


----------



## patrykus

No that's true. FAA can give approval for structures over 2000ft. Especially thin spire shouldn't couse big trouble in that subject.


----------



## webeagle12

patrykus said:


> No that's true. FAA can give approval for structures over 2000ft. Especially thin spire shouldn't couse big trouble in that subject.


In NYC area it will NOT happen because of airports.. And if not that, NYPD will scream " security/terrorism" and project will get axed really fast


----------



## iamtheSTIG

^^flight paths go AROUND Manhattans clusters though don't they? So it shouldn't really be a problem in that sense; it basically gives the FAA awareness of the height of the building


----------



## tinyslam

lol yes I don't think that flights coming out of La Guardia or Newark have to fly through the skyscraper canyons like Luke flew through the surface of the Death Star


----------



## desertpunk

The FAA will only ease up when they shut down La Guardia. Until then...


----------



## Rey73

This tower will be 1800ft on the roof and 2000ft with the spire.


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

Chris666 said:


> the question is: Why?


There's no shortage of office space in New York. A 2000ft tower in NYC is a luxury, not a necessity. Going forward, in the decades ahead, other cities around the world will attract the 2000ft structures, because they have a combination of a shortage of office space and the top-tier desire to build.

New York also has one of the highest skylines in the world already. So a 2000ft tower in the heart of Midtown isn't really a 2000ft tower. It's a 400ft pinnacle jutting out of a large and expansive plateau.

So you're a developer with a billion dollars. Or a large multinational bank with the funds for a new headquarters. And you want prestige and notice and the high-quality residences that only a brand new supertall can offer. You don't build in Manhattan. Your ego is lost amid a sea of other people's egos. You blend into the environment too much. So instead, you build in Moscow, or London or Paris. Cities that are equal to - if not superior to - New York in terms of geopolitical importance and economic power. But with a fertile landscape ripe for large, dominating skyscrapers.

Cities with a designated financial district away from the historic core. Spaces like Pudong with huge swathes of empty ground right in the heart of a thriving metropolis. If HSBC or Royal Dutch Shell or BP want a brand new 'Sears Tower-esque' monument to their wealth and importance, then their 2000ft monstrosity is being built in Canary Wharf. Or La Defense. Not in Manhattan.

New York is unlike other world cities (except perhaps Hong Kong). It's a plateau, not a pinnacle. You have to look at NYC from further away, see it more like a hive than a series of individual buildings. A 300m supertall in London is major news. In New York, it's Tuesday. That's a massive statement to the strength and importance of Manhattan to world architecture. But it also has the downside of limiting what will be built there. Even a vast project like the Hudson Yards, which if it were built in any other city on Earth would be a game-changer, it still blends into the skyline a bit. It's not going to redefine the appearance of the city. It's going to _enhance _it.

If I was a New Yorker, I'd feel happy and sad at this prospect. On the one hand, nothing truly massive is going to be built in Manhattan for a while. Because the only groups interesting in building that tall are doing so to project importance. And they can't project importance in NYC because nothing is more important than the city itself.

And on the other hand, I'm pleased because it means New York evolves more naturally. There's no grotesque pillar that looks out of place amid the towers. It's all an undulating whole. An ocean of the world's tallest. That's something no other city has, or can have. Not for a hundred years.

So in two decades, maybe Canary Wharf will be equal in size to Lower Manhattan (a real possibility). And maybe La Defense or the Moscow IBC will be comparable to Midtown. Who knows? But between these clusters will be nothing. Just a vast swathe of ancient history, flat and uninspired. Whereas in New York, it will be endless canyons of exceptional architecture. A city on a city on a city. Layers and layers, all the way down. That in itself is as interesting to me as one big giant skyscraper. It's the next step in city design and it's going to happen in America first.


----------



## aquablue

How is Paris and Moscow equal or superior to NYC in economic power? Can you post figures for that?

Also, Canary wharf is limited from ever being tall due to flight paths. I doubt that airport is going anywhere. The French don't like scrapers very much. When is the last time a very tall tower was built in La Defense? I doubt that anything very tall would ever be allowed to tower over the historic core of Paris. The only place a such a tall tower really is required would be NYC in the West, given sheer geography. That alone would be a good indicator that such towers are likely barring a major decline of NYC and the USA. Europe is rather anti-scraper as a whole, I don't see any mega tall towers ever being allowed any where near historic London or Paris, or most other EU cities. 

I disagree that the form of NYC will limit what is built in terms of taller towers. HY will definitely be a game changer, even for NYC. Remember where the HY is located, in a relative desert removed from the sea of tall buildings in midtown. The fact that it is such a modern design compared to the surrounding 1930 brick buildings is important too.

The plateau will only spur developers to build higher and higher as space becomes more scarce and views become more and more valued. They will want their towers to stand out. There are countless historic districts and places where FAR is limited which means land will become more valuable and scarce as current new districts and rezoning areas (HY and Manhattan East) are built out. Residential demand will spur higher and taller towers as people want to live in Manhattan and the outer boroughs have a high NIMBY presence precluding much skyscraper activity. If NYC continues to be the destination city it is today, taller towers are inevitable and I don't see how a 2000 foot tower is out of the question. Even if it only sticks out 200 m above the plateau in a city of skyscrapers, developers will still be salivating at the thought of their tower being above the fray. Views are always a priority in NYC due to it being a forest of scrapers. So, I think that the form of NYC will actually lead to taller towers in a greater number compared to places where a tall tower is built mainly to show-off, due to sheer land economics and demand for views combined with the destination presence of a city like NYC.


----------



## Rey73

Yes, it is a nice tower with 1800ft on the roof and 2000ft with the spire


----------



## Jay

SomeKindOfBug said:


> *So in two decades, maybe Canary Wharf will be equal in size to Lower Manhattan (a real possibility). And maybe La Defense or the Moscow IBC will be comparable to Midtown.* Who knows? But between these clusters will be nothing. Just a vast swathe of ancient history, flat and uninspired. Whereas in New York, it will be endless canyons of exceptional architecture. A city on a city on a city. Layers and layers, all the way down. That in itself is as interesting to me as one big giant skyscraper. It's the next step in city design and it's going to happen in America first.


I really, really doubt that... Have you ever been to Manhattan? You can't even compare a city like London or Moscow 

I also don't think NYC needs a 2000 foot building, for me a dozen or so 1000-1400 footers on the same island is far more impressive, although someday I'm sure we will see higher than that.


----------



## (:

I honestly wouldn't mind if this were built. are there any Chinese companies known to be looking to build in NYC that we might see developing this tower?


----------



## droneriot

In the picture above, as you go to the right, it drops from supertall level to lowrise level pretty abruptly...


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Rey73 said:


> Yes, it is a nice tower with 1800ft on the roof and 2000ft with the spire


Nice! Is there any chance you can put 3 Hudson Blvd in there too for a skyscraper nut?


----------



## MarshallKnight

droneriot said:


> In the picture above, as you go to the right, it drops from supertall level to lowrise level pretty abruptly...


Yeah, that's one thing that's sort of bugged me about the redevelopment of the HY neighborhood. It's like a tabletop mesa rising suddenly out of a flat desert (I feel similarly about the skyline for Downtown Los Angeles). I'd like to see some of the more mid-scale buildings linking the new supertalls to the shorter neighborhoods to the North and South. Phase II will be helpful in that the development will descend more gradually to the Hudson.



Vertical_Gotham said:


> Nice! Is there any chance you can put 3 Hudson Blvd in there too for a skyscraper nut?


While we're at it, we might as well ask for Manhattan West and HY Phase II, even if they're preliminary designs.


----------



## dexter2

There's a big chance that other, maybe smaller towers will appear near HY sitie which will act as a buffer along with highline. I wouldn't be so worried about alienation of this complex.


----------



## McSky




----------



## JohnFlint1985

Rey73 said:


> Yes, it is a nice tower with 1800ft on the roof and 2000ft with the spire


this is one insanely sexy render


----------



## Jay

Maybe I'm being stupidly optimistic but I feel one day a building of at least kinda close to this height could be a reality. After 9/11 everyone swore we would never see 1000 footers again in NYC and we already have 3 in the 1400 range underway, we're definitely going in the right direction.


----------



## Eric Offereins

9/11 only slowed down the development of skyscrapers very briefly


----------



## aquablue

It makes everything else look like toy town. Just amazing how those cities in China and ME will look with multiple 600m towers. They truly are the modern version of what Manhattan once was in terms of skyline aesthetics.


----------



## Jay

aquablue said:


> It makes everything else look like toy town. Just amazing how those cities in China and ME will look with multiple 600m towers. They truly are the modern version of what Manhattan once was in terms of skyline aesthetics.


Most of those 600m towers are in different cities, no city has/will have that many 600m buildings, at least not in the near future


----------



## droneriot

On that off-topic note, I think Burj 2020 in Dubai will be the first megatall in a city that already has a megatall.


----------



## aquablue

droneriot said:


> On that off-topic note, I think Burj 2020 in Dubai will be the first megatall in a city that already has a megatall.


I was thinking Shenzhen. Dubai hardly even needs megatalls with all the space they have.


----------



## Jay

I was reffering to projects that are certain to be built


----------



## onewtclover

McSky said:


>


You're just nostalgic about One World Trade Center's randome. :lol:

Doesn't anyone think it's ironic that New York might just have a 2000- footer called the Hudson Spire, and Chicago might just have a 2000- footer called the Chicago Spire?


----------



## hella good

Speaking of a disjointed mess, Is the design of this tower likely to change? I hope so because there have been several proposals recently for New York that are bland and mediocre, I think this amazing city deserves a higher quality of design.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ Yes. It's not a real design, just a hypothetical sketch for use as a sales tool. Whoever buys the property will hire a proper architectural firm to come up with a proper design.


----------



## (:

I think that it would be awesome if it Stern took this building


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

More of the same pics. 

*The Hudson Spire – Building Design + Construction article*
http://mjmacalusoblog.com/


----------



## Vertical_Gotham




----------



## LCIII

Thank God this is just a placeholder


----------



## MarshallKnight

Seriously. That is uuuuuugly.


----------



## iamtheSTIG

Get Stern to design this instead please!


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

1500' to the roof, then throw in a spire and make it 500m even and I will be satisfied. The World Trade Center towers are all 100% commercial use and the Spire will be office/residential mix so it can be thinner and tapering.

If they wish to build max, just look at the current concept rendering for 1,800' at 1.2msf and just add more heft to it. :cheers:









*1,800' with 1.2 msf*


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Guys please keep in mind that this development as of now is only a proposition with only very very uncertain possible looks of the tower. so design wise - I am sure we will see lots of changes. Besides, keep in mind that in this city there is always some concerned board of pissed_off_ about_everything_people and nothing this high gets an easy transition from drawing board to reality.

so as of today 
1. lets hope the financing for the tower is there and developer is serious enough of building this to get over possible problems with NIMBYs.

2. once the first stage is done, I am sure the design will be a good one since in this particular place the stakes are so high and place itself is so open from the river that no one will built such a dominant tower without a truly unique look. so rest assured we will have plenty of time to get amazed by the designs. plus you can't built some mediocre nothing or cheap this high in such a new fashionable development.

*so it will be high. it will be spectacular. it will be iconic.*


----------



## citybooster

Since there really isn't a neighborhood there to get NIMBY about, this whole West Side being Manhattan's Final Frontier, don't think we have to worry about community opposition much. Certainly with as much land available at the Sherwood and the "Hudson Spire" sites if I'm not mistaken even if there were one tower built on each site they could go 1,400 ft each potentially... with as you say if combined we can see a version of the Hudson Spire that soars to the advertised possibility of 1,800 ft. In either case because of the location and value of the properties there certainly will be money made available to build there.

Ultimately I think in this situation there is an almost absolute certainty come the next five years something truly iconic and a statement for New York City will be going up there.


----------



## RobertWalpole

McGraw Hill would make a great anchor tenant!

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bus...ake-tower-in-move-to-lower-manhattan-1.839096


----------



## Hanyuu222

Nice, Hudson Spire is slowly becoming the new 1WTC. I hope Hudson Spire delivers. Would love to see structural expressionism in the final design.


----------



## weidncol

RobertWalpole said:


> McGraw Hill would make a great anchor tenant!
> 
> http://www.northjersey.com/news/bus...ake-tower-in-move-to-lower-manhattan-1.839096


No, they must come to 3 WTC!


----------



## Blue Flame

weidncol said:


> No, they must come to 3 WTC!


Oh, who cares about 3 WTC? I would much rather have Hudson Spire than 3 WTC. 3WTC is a consolation prize compared to what this could very well be.


----------



## weidncol

^^ It is an essential building to "complete" the whole WTC complex. Having it completed will allow for three contiguous blocks of retail, a beautiful building, and plenty of available office space. 

It would be awesome if this could get built, however 3 WTC already has a good start and just needs one more tenant (possibly PA financing) to continue. That's why I'm supporting 3 WTC more than this, plus it's the WTC; a very significant place. 

Ok, I'm done with my rant.


----------



## Simfan34

Vertical_Gotham said:


> *Tishman Speyer front runner and may buy adjacent site owned by Sherwood Equity:*
> http://nypost.com/2014/03/31/white-case-headed-for-jumbo-lease-at-1221-6th-ave/
> 
> Tishman Speyer is the front-runner for a $200 million-plus purchase of a Hudson Yards-area development site, sources said.
> 
> The parcel is owned by the Rosenthal family and runs from West 34th to 35th streets, between 10th Avenue and the planned new Hudson Boulevard in the middle of the block.
> 
> The sale offering via Massey Knakal was first reported by Crain’s, which also said an adjacent site owned by Sherwood Equities might be sold as well if the Rosenthals found a buyer.
> 
> Now, we're told, the company run by Jerry Speyer and Rob Speyer h*as both sites in its sights*.
> 
> The Rosenthal piece alone can support a 1.2 million square-foot project as of right.
> 
> The area’s extraordinary run-up in values is driven by the thundering success of Related Cos.’ 26-acre project Hudson Yards rail yards project two blocks south.


I'd hope so- it's be strange for this to not be a whole block.


----------



## Blue Flame

weidncol said:


> ^^ It is an essential building to "complete" the whole WTC complex. Having it completed will allow for three contiguous blocks of retail, a beautiful building, and plenty of available office space.
> 
> It would be awesome if this could get built, however 3 WTC already has a good start and just needs one more tenant (possibly PA financing) to continue. That's why I'm supporting 3 WTC more than this, plus it's the WTC; a very significant place.
> 
> Ok, I'm done with my rant.


The WTC is an embarrassment. And at 1170ft. , 3WTC is a shrimp compared to this. Regardless, I would be glad to see it built, but if it was a choice between this at maximum height, or 3WTC, this would definitely get my vote. 3WTC would add greatly to the WTC, but Hudson Spire could add greatly to the whole city. I don't think 3WTC will have that kind if impact.


----------



## j-biz

WTC is an embarrassment?? GTFO of here! :slap:

The World Trade Center is *REAL*. This is *FANTASY*.

I'd rather see 3 and 2 built any day before this.


----------



## weidncol

Height is not everything...


----------



## Funkyskunk2

3wtc is a shrimp.:lol: It has about as much square footage as this site consolidated. And with its practical proportions it is a better representation of what will likely be built here than the ridiculously proportioned render we have.


----------



## Jay

j-biz said:


> WTC is an embarrassment?? GTFO of here! :slap:
> 
> The World Trade Center is *REAL*. This is *FANTASY*.
> 
> I'd rather see 3 and 2 built any day before this.


The design depicted is fantasy but someone is going to build a very large tower on this site, likely much taller than 3WTC. 



> 3wtc is a shrimp. It has about as much square footage as this site consolidated. And with its practical proportions it is a better representation of what will likely be built here than the ridiculously proportioned render we have.


A shrimp in what way? It's one of my favorite buildings in the city


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

Blue Flame said:


> And at 1170ft. , 3WTC is a shrimp compared to this.


3WTC exists. It has a name and an owner and some tenants lined up to lease office space.

'This' doesn't.

3WTC has a design and an official height and about 10% of the building already built.

'This' doesn't.

'This' doesn't have anything. 'This' is a bunch of numbers on a rich man's ledger. It's pork futures at best, and at worst just the shadow of a unicorn's dream.

Don't get uppity over an imagined rivalry with 3WTC. It's way too early for that. 3WTC will be topped out and ready to go by the time 'this' even has a design in place. We're years and years away from some Hudson Spire being even close to a reality. Hold on to hope, but don't jump to hate.


----------



## Jay

SomeKindOfBug said:


> 3WTC exists. It has a name and an owner and some tenants lined up to lease office space.
> 
> 'This' doesn't.
> 
> 3WTC has a design and an official height and about 10% of the building already built.
> 
> 'This' doesn't.
> 
> 'This' doesn't have anything. 'This' is a bunch of numbers on a rich man's ledger. It's pork futures at best, and at worst just the shadow of a unicorn's dream.
> 
> Don't get uppity over an imagined rivalry with 3WTC. It's way too early for that. 3WTC will be topped out and ready to go by the time 'this' even has a design in place. We're years and years away from some Hudson Spire being even close to a reality. Hold on to hope, but don't jump to hate.



For the last time the design is just a PLACEHOLDER. The site will likely host a large tower, probably not 1800' but still, although I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.


----------



## Funkyskunk2

Jay said:


> A shrimp in what way? It's one of my favorite buildings in the city


Blue flame called it that. I thought it was absurd.


----------



## citybooster

The value and status of the location will make Hudson Spire real, much sooner than many here think. Either as two 1,300-1,400 ft towers on the Sherwood and Maksal sites individually or 1,800 ft in one huge tower, it's a no brainer this being the fastest developing area, with no NIMBY or other pressures to bog down building relatively fast. The design currently seen is a placeholder, not the definitive tower but a representation of how it stands out in the skyline. I fully support this being built out soon.

That doesn't take away from WTC 3 at all.... hopefully everything gets on track this spring for a full build out. I want this tower done so Silverman finally can get to WTC2, the crowning piece of the WTC complex. There's more than enough room for two great towers, no need for silly competitions on which is better. They BOTH will add greatly to the Manhattan skyline and can't wait for both to be built!


----------



## MarshallKnight

Funkyskunk2 said:


> Blue flame called it that. I thought it was absurd.


Don't worry, dude. _I_ got what you were saying.


----------



## Eric Offereins

weidncol said:


> Height is not everything...


So true. A fully built and functioning WTC is worth much more than this pipe dream.


----------



## TechTitan

Boggles my mind people can't see kilometer+ tall buildings in the future. It's a natural progression of society. Guess some diseases will always exist, guess oil will always be our primary source of energy, guess we will never travel to another solar system, guess our life expectancy age has been maxed out, etc etc. I recommend reading up on futuretimeline.net it may better help some of your understandings about what will become feasible in the not too distant future


----------



## Kanto

Jay said:


> I disagree, there comes a point where we will no longer be able to build much taller, I don't think there will ever be a day where kilometer buildings are all over the place. It's just too costly and takes too many resources. It makes more sense to spread out a little.
> 
> Even if you take a look at buildings like Burj Khalifa and Kingdom Tower the unoccupied portions up top are as big as a midsized skyscraper.
> 
> I think that at least for quite some time about 2000 feet is the limit for occupied space, anything beyond that will be vanity height.


You mean today it costs too much and takes too many resources. But tomorrow's limitations might be very far from today's limitations. New materials, stronger materials are being developed as we speak. Take carbon nanotubes for example. They are many times stronger than steel, yet 80 years ago nobody even dreamed of something like them. There is no reason to believe that the speedy development of new technologies and materials, which has been ever increasing in speed since the dawn of the industrial revolution, will suddenly stop next week hno:

As to Patrykus, I mentioned it in another thread a year ago, offices will be extinct 'til the end of this century. With that I agree, however residential buildings will never die. Already today we see that only a very few truly tall buildings are office buildings. In the 70's all of them were office buildings. Today most of them are residential or at least mixed use. We'll see the skyscraper race to continue many centuries into the future, but it will be residential skyscrapers. The future of tall buildings is residential :cheers:


----------



## weidncol

Sure, tall residential buildings may be the thing now, but things change over time. It's called stages. Office will soon overtake residential just like residential overtook office. It's an endless cycle.


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

TechTitan said:


> Boggles my mind people can't see kilometer+ tall buildings in the future. It's a natural progression of society. Guess some diseases will always exist, guess oil will always be our primary source of energy, guess we will never travel to another solar system, guess our life expectancy age has been maxed out, etc etc. I recommend reading up on futuretimeline.net it may better help some of your understandings about what will become feasible in the not too distant future


The primitive thinking here is assuming taller = more advanced.

As though the average height of buildings is a linear progression throughout all of history. First pyramids, then cathedrals, then skyscrapers, then arcologies? No.

Truly advanced thinking is seeing cities as interconnected entities rather than a disparate collection of individual buildings.

That doesn't mean kilometer high buildings will never be built. Of course they will. I'm saying, I don't think they'll be _necessary_. Improvements to public transport, city planning and urban development will make a lot of the problems that skyscrapers are a solution to disappear.

So that means, more and more, a gulf will form between mixed use commercial properties and megatall prestige projects.

I mean, why have one building at 500m when you can have two at 300m for the same price?


----------



## Kanto

^^ In skyscrapers taller is more advanced. In lowrises it isn't but we are not talking about lowrises here, we are talking about really tall buildings. Obviously height isn't the only factor that advances with new scientific discoveries, however it is the most major and most dominant such factor. And trust me, "mixed use commercial projects" will too become taller and taller, just as they did since the dawn of skyscrapers on the end of the 19th century.



> I mean, why have one building at 500m when you can have two at 300m for the same price?


And for one at 500m you can have 500 at 3m, yet we still see tall buildings, so apparently this isn't the full equation. If this would be the full equation we'd have no building over 60 meters today. Again I will repeat the question, for nearly 150 years both maximalist and economic tall buildings have become steadily taller and taller, why should this long lasting trend suddenly end this year?


----------



## citybooster

And what the others give are pooh poohs that we'd expect from NIMBYS, not forward thinkers. No, I don't want a whole range of 2,000 footers for New York... economics and common sense must take up some part of the equation. But there is a place for strategic vision, and the thought of some buildings exceeding 1,500 ft in the area AND making total sense aren't mutually exclusive. We started thethread with excitement, now too many voices are saying what naysayers in the past have said... we can't do this, we can't do that, it's just not practical... yet we're supposed to admire the dreamers and doers here!


----------



## citybooster

The best solution to great population density in a relatively limited space is to build up commercially or residentially, or mixed. Greater access to mass transit, less automobiles on the road. I think the heights of Dubai and other developing nations aren't needed here but the idea of some megatalls 1,500-2,000 ft may actually be an integrated part of a city development like New York City.


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ I agree.It may eventually happen, but because of demand, nothing else


----------



## Jay

Eric Offereins said:


> ^^ I agree.It may eventually happen, but because of demand, nothing else


Maybe... I would say we would see bigger buildings spreading to the outer boroughs before that happened though. 

I do see the Asian building boom cooling down though in the near future, it's just crazy how many buildings are being put up over there! It would seem impossible to keep that up. :nuts:


----------



## Spocket

Taller ? Maybe but those will always be the outliers and not the norm.

More tall buildings ? Definitely. It is pretty much an absolute certainty that future cities in much of the world won't even allow anything under 5 floors to be built. 

I live in China and except for the very richest there are no houses built within cities. This may not be a surprise to anybody but if the argument is that there's actually plenty of room all over the place then yes, that's true but how many people would live in Antarctica even if they could ?

A crowd attracts a crowd and in plenty of countries the only way to keep the entire country from being paved over is to dictate that all housing be highrise. Simply saying that there's plenty of room makes a few presumptions that don't actually pan out once you explore them. 
Cities exist where they do because there's some resource that facilitates their expansion and wealth generation. New Yorkers can't commute from Kansas to Manhattan every day anyway. Nevertheless, our cities lie atop places that already have some intrinsic value so when they expand , they expand into and eventually cover those areas. We don't want L.A. to cover every square inch of farmland in southern California because the land is valuable for other reasons. It's more valuable for farming (if not now, it will be in the near future) than it is for residential expansion. We can build anywhere but when we can't the solution is to build up.

If cities built of nothing but kilometer tall skyscrapers were economically viable then you can rest assured that that's exactly what we'd have in many places around the world. India , for example, could return the countryside to a more natural state if their cities were condensed into areas a fraction of their current size. Same for China and any other densely populated country.

We simply can't predict the future. Assuming certain trends continue, we'll hit a population plateau by around 2100 but that's a long way off.


----------



## aquablue

I think political factors will play a major role in determining how high towers will be built in the future more than basic economic demand, supply, costs, etc. I.e, the fashion for living in dense cities might give way to a different trend.


----------



## wilfred267

aquablue said:


> I think political factors will play a major role in determining how high towers will be built in the future more than basic economic demand, supply, costs, etc. I.e, the fashion for living in dense cities might give way to a different trend.


Only if the Gale Brewers start multiplying.
.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Breaking News!! Tishman buys both sites to build a 2.8 msf tower!!!

*Tishman Speyer Buys Manhattan Site for $438 Million*
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-519687/


Tishman Speyer has paid $438 million for a development site on Manhattan’s far West Side in the latest sign of a land rush that has pushed the value of New York properties into the stratosphere.

The firm, controlled by the father-and-son team of Jerry and Rob Speyer, plans to build a 2.8-million-square-foot office tower on the site, which occupies a full block near several other huge projects that are under way.

“We think we’re entering the sweet spot of office development in New York,” said Rob Speyer.

The site—on 10th Ave. between West 34th St. and West 35th St.—consists of two separate parcels and currently is populated by parking lots and older, low-rise buildings. One parcel was owned by Sherwood Equities, the other by New York’s Rosenthal family.

The deal, which closed Tuesday, is the most significant New York transaction by Tishman Speyer since the economic downturn. During the recovery the firm has been investing in California and Chicago in the U.S., and in Europe, Brazil and China.

Tishman Speyer is joining a group of developers who believe the New York office market is turning a corner after experiencing relatively slow growth in rents and occupancies during the recovery. About 3.6 million square feet of new office space was added 2013 compared with zero in 2012, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield.

Over the next five years, builders are expected to add 17.2 million square feet. “New York needs more office space,” Rob Speyer said. “There’s a scarcity of large blocks of space that’s going to be more pronounced in years ahead.”

But debt financing for new development is still difficult to obtain from conventional sources, especially for so-called “speculative” buildings that aren’t preleased. Rob Speyer said that Tishman Speyer plans to find a major tenant before it starts building.

This push to build new office space has helped drive up land values. Sherwood bought its parcel for $8 million in 1986, and has invested only a few hundred thousand dollars in the properties since then, according to Jeffrey Katz, Sherwood’s president.

Tishman Speyer is paying $200 million for that property. “This is one of the hottest markets for land I can remember. I’ve never seen an acceleration of price so fast,” Mr. Katz said.

Manhattan’s far West Side is especially hot right now because of the massive Hudson Yards development and the city’s extension of the No. 7 subway line, which is scheduled to open in the neighborhood this year.

Related Cos.’ $15 billion Hudson Yards project is beginning to take shape just south of the Tishman Speyer site. Construction of the first tower, which is being anchored by Coach Inc., is under way and scheduled to be completed in 2015. Earlier this year, Time Warner Inc. announced plans to move its headquarters to Hudson Yards.

Also nearby, Brookfield Properties has plans for $4.5 billion worth of development, including two office buildings, an apartment building and parks.

In addition, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s real-estate company late last year paid $88 million for a vacant property in the Hudson Yards area. And in September, Sherwood and a partner sold a development site at 10th Ave. and West 30th St. for $167 million, to developer Frank McCourt, who is planning a mixed-use tower. The price was three times what they paid for the site in 2011.

Tishman Speyer has considered building in the area before. In 2008, the firm struck a deal with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to buy the 26-acre Hudson Yards site. But the deal fell apart as the economy weakened. Related was selected as the project’s developer later that year.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Yesssssssssss!


----------



## Ghostface79

Getting closer to reality. Now let's see what Tishman does with the site.


----------



## citybooster

Hudson Spire is now within reach... one major tenant will get financing rolling and at 2.8 mil square feet in one massive tower 1,800ft is much more looking like a reality... not just a speculative vision!


----------



## Fan Railer

jconyc said:


> Simply not true...*do some research before making statements of fact.*
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/?mod=WSJBlog


Lol, coming from the guy citing an inherently flawed study... maybe you should read into stuff before you throw it around.
One comment on the article:


> His conclusion is half-right but misleadingly optimistic in a way that seems as if he’s defending the rich. There are a number of things wrong with this article from an economists’ perspective, including the measurements used to estimate inherited wealth and the presentation of statistics.
> Personal experience polls are scientifically worthless.
> 
> It’s not the percentage of wealth inherited that determines how “rich” a person is, but how much actual money is inherited because investment opportunities multiply as inheritance increases.
> 
> The author points out that the number of rich people are growing… but as numerous politicians have pointed out, the rich aren't just getting richer, the middle class are becoming poorer. There is a division between the top of the middle class where some are seeing wealth accumulation and becoming rich, and the others are equally being drained of wealth and becoming poorer middle class. The money for the rich doesn't just appear out of thin air, someone has to work for it and someone has to lose it for them to gain it.
> 
> So, this guy didn't lie, and his conclusions aren't wrong, they’re out of context and pretty worthless at describing the actual mechanics of inheritance and its effect on wealth generation.


----------



## solgoldberg

Fan Railer said:


> Lol, coming from the guy citing an inherently flawed study... maybe you should read into stuff before you throw it around.
> One comment on the article:


Yeah.
Staying NYC relevant I want to say that I enjoyed my one visit to the "Occupy Wall Street" encampment in 2011. I drove in with a good friend from cNYC college daze way back when.
It was a beautiful early fall day and we found parking easily near City Hall.


----------



## j-biz

Wow, that was lightning fast! Tishman Speyer wants back in the game.

I will say, a small little voice is starting to whisper in the back of my mind bubble, bubble, bubble.....


----------



## solgoldberg

j-biz said:


> Wow, that was lightning fast! Tishman Speyer wants back in the game.
> 
> I will say, a small little voice is starting to whisper in the back of my mind bubble, bubble, bubble.....


Yep.

It's been in the back of mind for a while, but I've also lived in LA, seen them build suburbs in the high desert of Palmdale, CA, seen them build suburbs in the desert of Las Vegas, etc., etc...


----------



## JohnFlint1985

*Vertical_Gotham* you know I just realized something about the above map. The ugly yellow *DHL building* is between 39 and 38 str. 
you moved it one street up on the map. you should change the numbers of the streets.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

JohnFlint1985 said:


> *Vertical_Gotham* you know I just realized something about the above map. The ugly yellow *DHL building* is between 39 and 38 str.
> you moved it one street up on the map. you should change the numbers of the streets.


 The building is between 38th and 39th on the map. 

Btw, here's an updated of the boulevard of the map including Phase 1 of HY. 

That *church was actually in the wrong location on my map* and I made the correction as I completely forgot to include:

*Extell's, 551 Tenth Ave. *


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Hmm OK. kay: I was getting all confused - since I am looking at satellite and see a different picture.

475 10th avenue is too long. it is a bit longer then 483, but basically the old building along the 36 street is way longer. Very good job though!


----------



## JohnFlint1985

here is from above https://www.google.com/maps/place/4...2!3m1!1s0x89c259b3232ee0f9:0x63130b14b549e47d


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

^^ That is actually a good idea to use the Google maps. I'll make the corrections thanks.


----------



## j-biz

Google already has the outline for Hudson Blvd on the map if you zoom in close enough. :cheers:


----------



## McSky

That's a great map of all the projects and plots in the Hudson Yards area. Thanks for working on it and posting it.

The west side is going to go absolutely hog-wild from 30th Street to 42nd Street. What a change from the seedy and underdeveloped state of far west side up until the High Line was built and Related stepped on the gas.


----------



## rlw777

Skyline with significant projects and potential hudson spire


----------



## j-biz

^^ Very cool, but there's no way the Hudson Spire would be that big, even if it were built to the full 1800 ft.


----------



## rlw777

^^ yeah probably right... its tough to estimate. I guessed what an extra 550' would be on top of ESB for comparison. Which is tough with no idea how far down the base is.


----------



## McSky

Has Tishman Speyer given any indication that they intend to build one tower on the entire plot?


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

^^ Why wouldn't they? The footprint of the entire site would not be big enough to create a mini Hudson yards. They spent over $200 m for each lots for the purpose to build a tower of epic proportions with 2.85 msf. Just shy of 1 WTC total sq footage of development of 3msf.


----------



## jconyc

Nice graphic!

Shouldn't we be calling this the Hudson Speyer?:lol::cheers:


----------



## Jay

rlw777 said:


> ^^ yeah probably right... its tough to estimate. I guessed what an extra 550' would be on top of ESB for comparison. Which is tough with no idea how far down the base is.


True, and 1WTC is a very broad building despite the fact that it tapers on the sides. 

However if they chose to build this building really fat it may not end up over 400m, we'll see what they do.


----------



## aquablue

Ugh, if it's another 50 HY It would be a shame. What an opportunity to do something extraordinary for the city. I believe that if it reaches 500m most here will be happy enough. Hopefully the building will taper rather than be fat all the way up. However, i guess the developers will be tempted to maximize profits and build a shorter tower.


----------



## CityGuy87

rlw777 said:


> Skyline with significant projects and potential hudson spire


You forgot 1 Vanderbilt but incredible job nonetheless.


----------



## G.A.M.E.R

Taller than One World Trade Center :drool:


----------



## Blue Flame

G.A.M.E.R said:


> Taller than One World Trade Center :drool:


That isn't hard. 
Not to get into the spire/antennae debate, but from a distance, 1WTC looks like its roof height. The spire is barely visible, except when lit. 
Hopefully this project will be at least 200 ft. taller to the roof.


----------



## Jay

Blue Flame said:


> That isn't hard.
> Not to get into the spire/antennae debate, but from a distance, 1WTC looks like its roof height. The spire is barely visible, except when lit.
> Hopefully this project will be at least 200 ft. taller to the roof.


I think part of it's the picture, in person the spire is much more visible from anywhere. 

It might not be "hard" but anything in the same height caliber or taller than 1WTC to the roof is still huge. Still only a handful of buildings (mostly in China) go over 400 meters to the top floor.


----------



## Trex-md

This has the same likelihood of rising as a 90 year old mans downtown entertainment district


----------



## Jay

Trex-md said:


> This has the same likelihood of rising as a 90 year old mans downtown entertainment district


Did you read any of this thread? 

Tishman Speyer bought the site and they're building a near 3msf building.


----------



## Funkyskunk2

He must mean the height, which is almost certainly true.


----------



## Trex-md

Yeah I was referring to the height... Obviously It would kick ass if someone had the will to make it happen.


----------



## Jay

Trex-md said:


> Yeah I was referring to the height... Obviously It would kick ass if someone had the will to make it happen.


sorry my mistake, It definitely could break 400 meters but 500 is probably unlikely, at least without the help of some sort of structural element.


----------



## Blue Flame

Jay said:


> I think part of it's the picture, in person the spire is much more visible from anywhere.
> 
> It might not be "hard" but anything in the same height caliber or taller than 1WTC to the roof is still huge. Still only a handful of buildings (mostly in China) go over 400 meters to the top floor.


Hm, I would question that. The spire is pretty thin, and while I can attest that it is most assuredly visible from within the city, I don't know how visible it is from a distance. 
And I didn't argue that the WTC wasn't a large building, but I'm hoping for something much better here.


----------



## weidncol

I just noticed that in that picture, 2 WTC is supposed to be "covering" 1 WTC, not to the side.


----------



## aquablue

AlexNYC said:


> 1,800 feet? Won't happen. Yes, the square footage is impressive but developers in this city always choose the cheap route. We are lucky if we get a 1,300 footer here. Look what happened to the North Tower. The so called signature tower is shorter than the Empire State Building which was built more than 80 years ago! Pathetic. The Hudson Yards is most likely the biggest opportunity of building really tall without having to deal with NIMBYs. And look what is happening: the tallest tower gets shortened and the Spire will be another fat, short, run-of-the-mill office tower.


Yes, developers in NY have no vision or imagination at all, no common sense in the least either - because, height is everything, everyone knows that. How dare they not build taller for us height fans. How dare they not copy Chinese developers, the indignity of it all! After all, what's the difference between NYC and China, it's basically the same thing, right? They definitely should just forgo profits and take on augmented construction costs in order to please the "massive" amount of skyscraper fans who long for height to make the city more lofty, so we can all impress the world because now our city is just too darn short. You just know that these folks and will do everything they can to make life a living hell for the developers if they don't comply and the sky will fall. Of course, that's not counting the negative opinion in the press and especially from those pesky neighborhood groups.. we all know how they LOVE dem megatalls. Last but not least, don't forget Mr.Joe/Jane tourist who will be aghast at the gall of these developers keeping costs in check in order to ensure their business operate profitably, then get right back on their planes to Iowa, Kansas and London at the sight of this rinky-dink unimpressive town. Oh the humanity, NYC is sooo over.


----------



## rlw777

aquablue said:


> Yes, developers in NY have no vision or imagination at all, no common sense in the least either - because, height is everything, everyone knows that. How dare they not build taller for us height fans. How dare they not copy Chinese developers, the indignity of it all! After all, what's the difference between NYC and China, it's basically the same thing, right? They definitely should just forgo profits and take on augmented construction costs in order to please the "massive" amount of skyscraper fans who long for height to make the city more lofty, so we can all impress the world because now our city is just too short. You just know that these folks and will do everything they can to make life a living hell for the developers if they don't comply and the sky will fall. Of course, that's not counting the negative opinion in the press and especially from those pesky neighborhood groups.. we all know how they LOVE dem megatalls. Last but not least, don't forget Mr.Joe/Jane tourist who will be aghast at the gall of these developers keeping costs in check in order to ensure their business operate profitably, then get right back on their planes to Iowa, Kansas and London at the sight of this rinky-dink unimpressive town. Oh the humanity, NYC is sooo over.


I am sensing some sarcasm


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

AlexNYC said:


> 1,800 feet? Won't happen. Yes, the square footage is impressive but developers in this city always choose the cheap route. We are lucky if we get a 1,300 footer here. Look what happened to the North Tower. The so called signature tower is shorter than the Empire State Building which was built more than 80 years ago! Pathetic. The Hudson Yards is most likely the biggest opportunity of building really tall without having to deal with NIMBYs. And look what is happening: the tallest tower gets shortened and the Spire will be another fat, short, run-of-the-mill office tower.


 

NYC Developers choose the *cheap* rout unfortunately because labor and materials costs are exorbitant to build in NYC. Anywhere in the world you can build exactly what is intended at the fraction of the cost to build here without any sacrifice of materials or design. We all know this.

This is the reason why we get mostly boxy designs because of our zoning and it’s a vehicle to maximize profits after spending a ton to construct it for the developers. Another issue is with increasing real estate values in NYC, the Hudson Spire cost TS approximately $450 million just for the land acquisition itself.  That purchase price alone can build a high quality tower anywhere in the universe. 

For this reason, realistically, I will be ecstatic if TS can build 1450-1500 footer to the roof which is good enough to be the tallest in the Yards to hold the title as the center piece of the Hudson Yards! 

But I’ll leave the door open for a possible surprise in height for some intriguing factors that could come into play cuz… am really really optimistic by nature. 

1) Tish lost the Original HY bid. (Bruised ego’s and hurt feelings…ouch. I have a booboo and I need a band aid)

2) Tish wants to build a show stealer from Related in the Yards.  (Ego builder and Revenge is sweet)

3) Tish spent $450 M for the land to not build something iconic.  (Gosh! we paid a lot of dough in this prime-prime spot to just build a stumpy tower especially the site has been dubbed the Hudson Spire, therefore there are expectations to satisfy)


----------



## mattpugs

Would love to see this one day


----------



## Jay

AlexNYC said:


> 1,800 feet? Won't happen. Yes, the square footage is impressive but developers in this city always choose the cheap route. We are lucky if we get a 1,300 footer here. Look what happened to the North Tower. The so called signature tower is shorter than the Empire State Building which was built more than 80 years ago! Pathetic. The Hudson Yards is most likely the biggest opportunity of building really tall without having to deal with NIMBYs. And look what is happening: the tallest tower gets shortened and the Spire will be another fat, short, run-of-the-mill office tower.


1800 feet would happen if there were a spire or crown possibly, depending on how tall they want to build, it seems like they want a very high building here though judging from the articles.


----------



## rlw777

Let's not forget the site was marketed on the ability to build tall. I would expect this thing to at the least have the highest roof height in the city


----------



## LordArthurWellesley

I recently spoke with a very high level person who was involved in this deal. He stated that Tishman will build a "truly iconic" tower on this site.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Thanks for the heads up! Lord Wellesley of Casterly Rock? 

Any word on the selection of the architect?

:cheers:


----------



## LordArthurWellesley

I am Lord Wellesley of the Apsley House, kind sir!

No word re: the architect.


----------



## Lowkey Lion

LordArthurWellesley said:


> I recently spoke with a very high level person who was involved in this deal. He stated that Tishman will build a "truly iconic" tower on this site.


Tremendous news!


----------



## j-biz

LAW, every time you post, all I see is Arthur Weasley. Which is not a bad thing.


----------



## Puppetgeneral

NYC is getting a lot of supertalls proposed and u/c, hope all of them gets constructed, and it looks like it is not falling out of the race afterall.


----------



## Lowkey Lion

Puppetgeneral said:


> NYC is getting a lot of supertalls proposed and u/c, hope all of them gets constructed, and it looks like it is not falling out of the race afterall.


They will be constructed. NYC is the world capital.

There may be 20 towers over 1,000+ feet in the very near future:

Completed, under construction, and topped out are the following:

Empire State Building
Chrysler Building
One World Trade Center
One57
432 Park Avenue

The following towers will surely be constructed at some point:

217 West 57th Street
111 West 57th Street
Tower Verre
30 Hudson Yards
3 Hudson Boulevard (I think they are close to securing a tenant)
35 Hudson Yards
50 Hudson Yards
One Vanderbilt (they apparently have a tenant lined up)
Tishman Speyer's "Hudson Spire" site
Witkoff's Park Lane site
31 West 57th Street
Two World Trade Center
Three World Trade Center
514 11th Avenue
80 South Street

Truly an unprecedented time in the great city's history.


----------



## weidncol

I really, honestly believe 3 WTC is going to continue after this next vote.


----------



## Jay

Puppetgeneral said:


> NYC is getting a lot of supertalls proposed and u/c, hope all of them gets constructed, and it looks like it is not falling out of the race afterall.


Who said it was falling out of the race? It actually appears to be leading it, as it should, being the original skyscraper city.


----------



## Ghostface79

^^^. I always found this argument hilarious, in fact NYC right now has more supertall under construction or planned than any other city in the world except for Dubai (more according to SSP, less according to Emporis). And we're talking about what's already a world class city not a developing one, which is quite impressive so there's no debate there.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Lowkey Lion said:


> They will be constructed. NYC is the world capital.
> 
> There may be 20 towers over 1,000+ feet in the very near future:
> 
> Completed, under construction, and topped out are the following:
> 
> Empire State Building
> Chrysler Building
> One World Trade Center
> One57
> 432 Park Avenue
> 
> The following towers will surely be constructed at some point:
> 
> 217 West 57th Street
> 111 West 57th Street
> Tower Verre
> 30 Hudson Yards
> 3 Hudson Boulevard (I think they are close to securing a tenant)
> 35 Hudson Yards
> 50 Hudson Yards
> One Vanderbilt (they apparently have a tenant lined up)
> Tishman Speyer's "Hudson Spire" site
> Witkoff's Park Lane site
> 31 West 57th Street
> Two World Trade Center
> Three World Trade Center
> 514 11th Avenue
> 80 South Street
> 
> Truly an unprecedented time in the great city's history.


New York has 6 supertalls right now: BoA, Chrysler, Empire State, New York Times, 1WTC, One57 and 1 more U/C: 432 Park Avenue

Then there are the 15 Proposed that you listed PLUS One Manhattan West, 138 East 50th, 341 Madison, and then there's that tower in Lower Manhattan that could now be a supertall because the 2 skyscraper plots were merged (can't remember the name)

Then there's the 2 mystery buildings: Central Park Tower and the Wanda Tower. 15 Penn Plaza is also a long-term viability. 425 Park Avenue could get an upgrade.

So the cumulative tally is:
Done: 5
+T/O: 6
+U/C: 7
+Proposed: 26
+Long-Term: 30


----------



## Eric Offereins

Somewhere between 10 and 15 supertalls by 2020 seems likely.


----------



## Lowkey Lion

aquablue said:


> You can't count those spires as supertalls though really. It's a major cheat. Where's Kanto when we need him. Really, NYC has only 3 supertalls. One57, WTC1, and ESB. Dubai has 20 and more to come.. I think NYC wll end up with around 10 supertalls to roof (that's all the matters really) after this cycle and many proposals will probably be canned due to a downturn in international demand or market slowdown. Sadly, as we saw last cycle, quite a few of those 26 proposals will be put on hold.


Most of these proposed towers will be built. This is New York.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

aquablue said:


> You can't count those spires as supertalls though really. It's a major cheat. Where's Kanto when we need him. Really, NYC has only 3 supertalls. One57, WTC1, and ESB. Dubai has 20 and more to come.. I think NYC wll end up with around 10 supertalls to roof (that's all the matters really) after this cycle and many proposals will probably be canned due to a downturn in international demand or market slowdown. Sadly, as we saw last cycle, quite a few of those 26 proposals will be put on hold.


Everyone else counts spires so why shouldn't New York? :dunno: How many does Dubai have not counting spires? Burj al Arab wouldn't count, for instance.


----------



## StevenW

New York needs at least one 2000 footer imo. I mean, it's New York City!


----------



## nyc15

StevenW said:


> New York needs at least one 2000 footer imo. I mean, it's New York City!


i wish that a tishman speyer do it
likely a +2100 ftt


----------



## Blue Flame

nyc15 said:


> i wish that a tishman speyer do it
> likely a +2100 ftt


That would be nice, but not likely. I would say an optimistic but reasonable height for this building would be between 1500-1700ft to the roof with a spire maybe getting it to around 1800-2000ft.


----------



## Blue Flame

Well, I did say it was an optimistic guess. It wouldn't surprise me if you were right, but I'm hoping for at least a 1500+ft. roof.


----------



## iamtheSTIG

Wait... What's the topic of this thread again?


----------



## Lowkey Lion

AlexNYC said:


> Also, New York's office towers aren't that tall.


One World Trade Center: 1,373/1,797 feet
Empire State Building: 1,250/1,474 feet
Chrysler Building: 1,046 feet

The Hudson Spire: 1,100-1,450 feet
One Vanderbilt: 1,200/ spire? feet
30 Hudson Yards: 1,227 feet
3 Hudson Boulevard: 1,034 feet
50 Hudson Yards: 1,068 feet
Two World Trade Center: 1,265/1,359 feet
Three World Trade Center: 1,073/1,171 feet


Those are massive buildings anywhere you go.


----------



## Jay

LordArthurWellesley said:


> I think that it will be between 350 and 440m.


I can't imagine this being below 400 meters unless it were really fat. 

Girasole is only 1.3 or so msf and still over 1000 feet. 1WTC is about 3 million but is quite a large tower especially at the base. 

I would imagine or at least hope they will add a crown or spire or both to make this NY's tallest.


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ I wouldn't call 1WTC fat either.


----------



## desertpunk

Let's keep to the topic folks.


----------



## Tower Dude

On that note, any one hear anything whats going on with this potential gem?


----------



## Hudson11

Tower Dude said:


> On that note, any one hear anything whats going on with this potential gem?


In case anybody doesn't know, or forgot with all of that blabber, Tishman Speyer aquired the entire block and plans to build something "truly iconic"


----------



## Tower Dude

well here's hoping they make good on their promise!:applause:


----------



## Xoltage

Took some time on this one haha


----------



## webeagle12

Xoltage said:


> Took some time on this one haha


Mother of god.jpg


----------



## wilfred267

Xoltage said:


> Took some time on this one haha


Great work but wouldn't you be able to see Hudson Yards from there as well?


----------



## Blue Flame

^^
What do you think that tower is between 1 Vanderbilt and BOA?


----------



## droneriot

That's the Hudson Spire. Hudson Yards is not in it.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ I believe 30 HY would be almost completely obscured by One Vanderbilt and Trump from that vantage point. Maybe not. Either way I guess you would still see part of the HY complex and Manhattan West somewhere between that cluster of spires and Chrysler... But let's give the dude a break, he already poured a ton of work into this!


----------



## wilfred267

Blue Flame said:


> ^^
> What do you think that tower is between 1 Vanderbilt and BOA?


:nuts:


----------



## droneriot

MarshallKnight said:


> ^^ I believe 30 HY would be almost completely obscured by One Vanderbilt and Trump from that vantage point. Maybe not. Either way I guess you would still see part of the HY complex and Manhattan West somewhere between that cluster of spires and Chrysler... But let's give the dude a break, he already poured a ton of work into this!


Don't think anyone was criticising his awesome work, I certainly wasn't. Just asking a question.


----------



## wilfred267

droneriot said:


> Don't think anyone was criticising his awesome work, I certainly wasn't. Just asking a question.


Same here l was just asking a question.


----------



## CityGuy87

By the end of the 21st century, the skyline of Manhattan will start to resemble the NYC envisioned in the sci-fi movie "The Fifth Element" or the planet Coruscant from Star Wars.


----------



## desertpunk

CityGuy87 said:


> By the end of the 21st century, the skyline of Manhattan will start to resemble the NYC envisioned in the sci-fi movie "The Fifth Element" or the planet Coruscant from Star Wars.


We'll let Dubai or some other burgh enjoy the Coruscant moniker. I like to think New York will just look _New Yorkier_.


----------



## CityGuy87

desertpunk said:


> We'll let Dubai or some other burgh enjoy the Coruscant moniker. I like to think New York will just look _New Yorkier_.


Well the NYC in the Fifth Element retained the overall look and feel of the city while just getting very vertical and combined with flashy futuristic style that greatly resembles art deco.

Back on topic, it will be very interesting and exciting to see how tall NYC will grow in the next few decades.


----------



## nyc15

CityGuy87 said:


> Well the NYC in the Fifth Element retained the overall look and feel of the city while just getting very vertical and combined with flashy futuristic style that greatly resembles art deco.
> 
> Back on topic, it will be very interesting and exciting to see how tall NYC will grow in the next few decades.


just imagin if that tower have a +2300ft in the roof height and withe spire +2700ft with addition 432 park 1397 ft, 1 vanderbilt 1450ft , nordstrom +1550 ft
and others supertalls buildings will mak a dramatical skyline for nyc


----------



## (:

Before NY sees a Burj khalifa I hope they build a 2000' building first


----------



## nyc15

(: said:


> Before NY sees a Burj khalifa I hope they build a 2000' building first


with 2.8msf nearly 3.0 msf , i hope that it will surpass shanghai tower


----------



## (:

If I am not mistaken the shanghai tower is 4.5 m² feet. But their is still a possibility especially if they take advantage of some affordable housing.


----------



## aquablue

Hold your horses space cowboys. This render is not even released and people are going on about Coruscant. Too Early, it may be, young grasshoppers!


----------



## sbarn

Call me a cynic, but I have low expectations for this building. I'm sure it will be massive, but tall / iconic TBD.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

sbarn said:


> Call me a cynic, but I have low expectations for this building. I'm sure it will be massive, but tall / iconic TBD.


Cynic! 


They paid $450 million just for the parcels. It better be tall and iconic and the crown jewel of the Hudson Yards for that kind of spending. No one would pay that kind of money to just build.. meh.


----------



## sbarn

Vertical_Gotham said:


> Cynic!
> 
> 
> They paid $450 million just for the parcels. It better be tall and iconic and the crown jewel of the Hudson Yards for that kind of spending. No one would pay that kind of money to just build.. meh.


I've got my fingers crossed it will be amazing!!


----------



## aquablue

I tall box is what I expect.... A modernist structure.


----------



## Jean Valjean 24601

sbarn said:


> I've got my fingers crossed it will be amazing!!


It will be!


----------



## hunser

I updated the supertall thread. I'll be on vacation next week, but please feel free to point out any mistakes / missing info (*not* in this thread though! PM or respective thread would suffice.).

*List of all 656ft+ / 200m+ skyscrapers in New York City*


*Completed / Topped out**

*1,000 footers:*

1. One World Trade Center, 1776ft (541m), [roof 1368ft / 417m] ***
2. Empire State Building, 1250ft (381m), [antenna 1454ft / 443m]
3. Bank of America Tower, 1200ft (366m), [roof 945ft / 288m]
4. Chrysler Building, 1046ft (319m), [roof 925ft / 282m]
5. New York Times Tower, 1046ft (319m), [roof 745ft / 227m]
6. One57, 1005ft (306m) ***

*900 footers:*

7. Four World Trade Center, 977ft (298m) ***
8. 70 Pine Street, 952ft (290m) [roof 848ft / 258m]
9. 40 Wall Street, 927ft (283m) [roof 900ft / 274m]
10. Citigroup Center, 915ft (277m)

*800 footers:*

11. 8 Spruce Street, 876ft (267m)
12. Trump World Tower, 861ft (262m)
13. GE Building, 850ft (259m)
14. Cityspire Center, 814ft (248m)
15. One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 813ft (248m)
16. Conde Nast Building, 809ft (247m) [antenna 1118ft / 341m]
17. Met Life Building, 808ft (246m)
18. Bloomberg Tower, 807ft (246m) [antenna 941ft / 287m]

*700 footers:*

19. Woolworth Building, 792ft (241m)
20. 1 Worldwide Plaza, 778ft (237m)
21. Carnegie Hall Tower, 757ft (231m)
22. 383 Madison Avenue, 755ft (230m)
23. 1715 Broadway, 753ft (230m)
24. AXA Center, 752ft (229m)
25. One Penn Plaza, 750ft (229m)
26. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 750ft (229m)
27. Time Warner Center North Tower, 749ft (228m)
28. Time Warner Center South Tower, 749ft (228m)
29. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, 749ft (228m)
30. 60 Wall Street, 745ft (227m)
31. One Astor Plaza, 745ft (227m)
32. 1 Liberty Plaza, 743ft (226m)
33. 20 Exchange Place, 741ft (226m)
34. 7 World Trade Center, 741ft (226m)
35. Three World Financial Center, 739ft (225m)
36. Bertelsmann Building, 733ft (223m)
37. Times Square Tower, 726ft (221m)
38. Metropolitan Tower, 716ft (218m) 
39. 500 Fifth Avenue, 709ft (216m), 
40. JPMorganChase Tower, 707ft (216m)
41. General Motors Building, 705ft (215m)
42. Metropolitan Life Tower, 700ft (213m)

*600 footers:*

43. Americas Tower, 692ft (211m) 
44. Solow Building, 689ft (210m)
45. HSBC Bank Building, 688ft (210m) 
46. 55 Water Street, 687ft (209m)
47. 277 Park Avenue, 687ft (209m)
48. 1585 Broadway, 685ft (209m)
49. Random House Tower, 684ft (208m)
50. Four Seasons Hotel, 682ft (208m)
51. McGraw-Hill Building, 674ft (205m)
52. Lincoln Building, 673ft (205m)
53. One Court Square, 673ft (205m)
54. Barclay Tower, 673ft (205m)
55. Paramount Plaza, 670ft (204m)
56. 440 West 42nd Street, 669ft (204m)
57. Trump Tower, 664ft (202m) 
58. Silver Towers South, 656ft (200m)
59. Silver Towers North, 656ft (200m)
...

*Under construction*

*1,000 footers:*

1. 432 Park Avenue, 1397ft (426m)

*900 footers: *

2. 30 Park Place, 937ft (286m)

*800 footers:*

3. 10 Hudson Yards, 895ft (273m)
4. 56 Leonard Street, 821ft (250m)

*700 footers:*

5. 50 West Street, 783ft (239m)
6. 250 East 57th Street, 715ft (218m)
7. 610 Lexington Avenue, 712ft (217m)

*600 footers:*

8. 5 Beekman Street, 663ft (202m)
9. 605 West 42nd Street, 656ft (200m)


*On hold*

*1,000 footers:*

1. Two World Trade Center, 1349ft (411m)
2. Three World Trade Center, 1155ft (352m)


*Site preparation* / Approved / Proposed *

*1,000 footers:*

1. Hudson Spire, 1800ft (549m)
2. One Vanderbilt Place, 1450ft (442m) [roof 1350ft / 412m]
3. 217 West 57th Street, 1424ft (434m) [likely to exceed 1550ft / 472m] ***
4. 111 West 57th Street, 1350ft (412m) [likely to exceed 1400ft / 427m] ***
5. Shvo Central Park Tower, 1320ft+ (400m+)
6. 30 Hudson Yards, 1227ft (374m) ***
7. 15 Penn PLaza, 1216ft (371m) [Stale Proposal]
8. One Manhattan West, 1216ft (371m) *** 
9. 520 West 41st Street, 1100ft (335m)
10. 50 Hudson Yards, 1070ft (326m) ***
11. Tower Verre, 1050ft (320m) ***
12. The Girasole, 1050ft (320m) ***
13. 80 South Street, 1018ft (310m)
14. 35 Hudson Yards, 1000ft (305m) *** 
15. 386 Flatbush Avenue, 1000ft (305m)
16. Sherwood Tower, 1000ft+ (305m+)
17. 138 East 50th Street, 1000ft+ (305m+)
18. 237 Park Avenue, 1000ft+ (305m+)
19. 341 Madison Avenue, 1000ft+ (305m+)
20. Park Lane Tower, 1000ft+ (305m+)
21. 31 West 57th Street, 1000ft+ (305m+)
22. CetraRuddy UES Tower, 1000ft+ (305m+)

*900 footers:*

23. 22 Thames Street, 961ft (293m) ***
24. 220 Central Park South, 950ft (290m) ***
25. 101 Murray Street, 950ft (290m)
26. SNCI NYC Tower, 950ft (290m)
27. One Madison Avenue, 937ft (286m) [Stale Proposal]
28. Two Manhattan West, 935ft (285m) ***
29. 15 Hudson Yards, 909ft (277m) ***
30. 425 Park Avenue, 905ft (276m)

*800 footers:*

31. 92 Fulton Street, 886ft (270m)
32. 20 Times Square, 856ft (261m) [Stale Proposal]
33. 227 Cherry Street, 800ft (244m) ***
34. 650 Madison Avenue, 800ft+ (244m+)

*700 footers:*

35. 520 Park Avenue, 781ft (238m) ***
36. 55 Hudson Yards, 780ft (238m) ***
37. 41 East 22nd Street, 777ft (237m) ***
38. 360 10th Avenue, 756ft (231m)
39. 55 Broad Street, 741ft (226m)
40. 470 11th Avenue, 720ft (219m)
41. 45 Broad Street, 712ft (217m)
42. Nobu Hotel and Residences, 709ft (216m)
43. Three Manhattan West, 702ft (214m) ***
44. Five World Trade Center, 700ft+ (213m+) [Stale Proposal]

*600 footers:*

45. 112 Fulton Street, 682ft (208m)
46. Citypoint Tower 1, 680ft (207m)
47. 239 West 52nd Street, 676ft (206m) ***
48. 125 Greenwich Street, 656ft+ (200m+)
49. 111 Washington Street, 656ft+ (200m+) ***
50. 514 11th Avenue, 656ft+ (200m+) 
51. Public New York, 656ft+ (200m+)
...

Right now NYC has about *260 buildings exceeding 500ft / 152m!*


----------



## SkYsCrApEr2013

Wow...that's a lot. It must be a bit crowded though...


----------



## onewtclover

It is very crowded, but you have to accept that as part of the normal lifestyle in New York. I wonder how it is where you live, in London...

What disappoints me just a tad bit is the gap between the buildings U/C and Proposed. But that shows the best is yet to come.


----------



## hunser

Yes, NYC is just getting started. We got 5 supertalls and 10 skyscrapers where construction is imminent.


----------



## weidncol

Three World Trade Center is no longer on hold.


----------



## hunser

weidncol said:


> Three World Trade Center is no longer on hold.


Technically it is, till proven otherwise. But I'm sure we'll see some activity soon, so there's no rush.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

New York has 65 skyscrapers over 200m either proposed, under construction or topped out. Right now there are only 56 skyscrapers over 200m. So New York is literally proposing *to double* the number of skyscrapers it has in the next 10 years. It's insane that New York is planning to add in 10 years what it took 100+ years to add in the first place. Here's to hoping the vast majority materialize.


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

onewtclover said:


> It is very crowded, but you have to accept that as part of the normal lifestyle in New York. I wonder how it is where you live, in London...


London is weird. Because while New York has a supertall around every corner, London has history around every corner. You can be nipping down the shops for a cornetto and there'll be a sign on the wall saying 'something important happened on this spot eight thousand years ago', and these signs are everywhere. Like, you have supertall glass skyscrapers over _here_, and over _there_, not ten feet away, is a thousand-year-old church. Just sitting there. I don't think there's a city on Earth with as big of a range of buildings.


----------



## sweet-d

Maybe Istanbul.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

SomeKindOfBug said:


> London is weird. Because while New York has a supertall around every corner, London has history around every corner. You can be nipping down the shops for a cornetto and there'll be a sign on the wall saying 'something important happened on this spot eight thousand years ago', and these signs are everywhere. Like, you have supertall glass skyscrapers over _here_, and over _there_, not ten feet away, is a thousand-year-old church. Just sitting there. I don't think there's a city on Earth with as big of a range of buildings.


Maybe, but 8,000 years ago? Supertall glass skyscraper*s*? No need to embellish London. It's a beautiful, historic city with a different urban layout. The Hudson Spire will be an amazing icon for New York. Add in the Chicago Spire and they will be the culmination of America's current skyscraper boom.


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

SomeKindOfBug said:


> London is weird. Because while New York has a supertall around every corner, London has history around every corner. You can be nipping down the shops for a cornetto and there'll be a sign on the wall saying 'something important happened on this spot eight thousand years ago', and these signs are everywhere. Like, you have supertall glass skyscrapers over _here_, and over _there_, not ten feet away, is a thousand-year-old church. Just sitting there. I don't think there's a city on Earth with as big of a range of buildings.


London is just as great as (if not even better than) NY, but it does not have 8,000 years of history. It was a tiny trading village 2,000 years ago and remained so until around the late 1600s when it really started to grow. London had 60,000 people in 1,500. Clearly, The London of today looks nothing like the London of 400 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.


----------



## City-of-Platinum

GiacomoPuccini said:


> London is just as great as (if not even better than) NY, but it does not have 8,000 years of history. It was a tiny trading village 2,000 years ago and remained so until around the late 1600s when it really started to grow. London had 60,000 people in 1,500. Clearly, The London of today looks nothing like the London of 400 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.


Indeed, I agree. London could be considered better than nyc.
My father who is not English thinks its the best city on the planet. I showed him a picture of all the towers planned in NY and he said he rather have London.


----------



## Hudson11

it's all preference. Aesthetically they're two very different cities.


----------



## Winoc

Back on topic...
*
Who's Moving to the Hudson Yards District?*
June 30, 2014














> Tishman Speyer New York regional director Chris Shehadeh (right, whom we snapped with our moderator, WeiserMazars real estate partner Ron Lagnado) says his company is still in design on the Hudson Yards District site it bought in February. It plans 2.8M SF along Hudson Boulevard from 34th Street to 35th.


I wonder how long we'll have to wait for a design for this one, but hopefully the wait won't be comparable to 225 W57th, it's final design is the Duke Nukem of supertalls.

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Tishman Speyer truly intends to build something iconic with a $3.2 B price tag!

*Tishman Speyer’s Hudson Yards tower to cost $3.2B: filing - 
Firm reveals all-in development price for 61-story building in an application with city agency*
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/07/07/tishman-speyers-hudson-yards-tower-to-cost-3-2b-filing/











> Tishman Speyer has put a *$3.2 billion price tag *on its 2.6 million-square-foot office tower in Hudson Yards, which *will rise 61 stories *when *completed in late 2019*.
> 
> The company, which earlier this year snapped up a pair of development sites at 34th Street and 10th Avenue, estimates the total cost of developing its office tower at $3.2 billion, according to an application filed with the New York City Industrial Development Agency.
> 
> The IDA is offering Tishman a 25-year exemption of property taxes worth about $170 million. The building, which the *developer is looking to construct to LEED Gold standards, will include 57,000 square feet of retail space.*
> 
> Earlier this year Tishman paid $438 million for the far West Side properties, one of which had been marketed by Massey Knakal as the “Hudson Spire” development site with the potential to build the country’s tallest building, surpassing the 104-story One World Trade Center.
> 
> Tishman’s building, however, is planned for only 61 stories. *The company intends to begin construction in the third quarter of 2015* and finish four years later.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

$3.2bn is less than the $3.9bn for 1WTC. Considering the latter is effectively 1,368ft, doesn't this mean the tower won't likely be as tall as 1,800ft (or if it's 1,800ft will be rather cheap looking?)


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Manitopiaaa said:


> $3.2bn is less than the $3.9bn for 1WTC. Considering the latter is effectively 1,368ft, doesn't this mean the tower won't likely be as tall as 1,800ft (or if it's 1,800ft will be rather cheap looking?)


Yea its cheaper than wtc because wtc is built to be a freakin fortress. At 61 floors I do not expect this to be at the advertised height of the "Hudson Spire" I do think it can be within the 1,400 give or take range with hopefully an iconic design aiming to become the jewel of the Hudson Yards. I could be happy with it. Although I would prefer a 1,500 footer at the very least!


----------



## totaleclipse1985

Vertical_Gotham said:


> Tishman Speyer truly intends to build something iconic with a $3.2 B price tag!
> 
> *Tishman Speyer’s Hudson Yards tower to cost $3.2B: filing -
> Firm reveals all-in development price for 61-story building *


*


How iconic can something be with just 61 floors? It's probably just fat boring trading floors. Very disappointing :bash:*


----------



## weidncol

Damn. I was hoping it would be in the taller range than what 61 floors might be. I'll sacrifice great design for height, however, and from the price tag it seems this will be a jewel of NY.


----------



## patrykus

Frankly with just 61 floors it's rather unlikely it will even reach 1400ft without some huge spire.


----------



## Dancing Banana

61 floors? yeah sure this will be 549m. but hey its new york, so someone said 549m and this height ended in the thread title...


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

patrykus said:


> Frankly with just 61 floors it's rather unlikely it will even reach 1400ft without some huge spire.


Agree. 1400 pushing it. Just hope it's going to be jewel with that price tag.


----------



## iamtheSTIG

at 61 floors we'll be lucky for a roof height of a supertall tbh!
That much square footage on that amount of floors would make it have a huge girth then! let's hope height floor to ceiling heights play a part here!

In comparison, how much will 30 Hudson Yards cost to build and how much square footage?

This building sounds like it could be quality over quantity, which I can't say i disapprove


----------



## patrykus

Dancing Banana said:


> 61 floors? yeah sure this will be 549m. but hey its new york, so someone said 549m and this height ended in the thread title...


I'm really not surprised by the height. Before now it was nothing more but wet dreams of some creative seller. And now it seems the tower won't be much taller than the thing previously planned for this plot.


----------



## weidncol

Looks like One WTC will be still hold the title for the tallest structure in NY for a while (by spire height, that is.)


----------



## Hudson11

this will be a supertall, and it will be... tall. People shouldn't consider anything such as floor count as final. According to the article posted one week ago, the building is still in design. I'm no expert, buy I would say that one does not simply finalize a design, which include floor count, in less than a week. Also, One Vanderbilt, at 1350 ft stands at less than 70 stories.


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

GiacomoPuccini said:


> London is just as great as (if not even better than) NY, but it does not have 8,000 years of history. It was a tiny trading village 2,000 years ago and remained so until around the late 1600s when it really started to grow. London had 60,000 people in 1,500. Clearly, The London of today looks nothing like the London of 400 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.


There are artefacts and archaeological sites in London from the early neolithic. They all have the blue English heritage plaques that I was speaking of, each one designating their location. Even a tiny trading village has history in this part of the world.


----------



## SkYsCrApEr2013

61 stories for a 549m tower?!?!? That's like 8-9m per floor!!!


----------



## Funkyskunk2

The 549m tower was never real...


----------



## SkYsCrApEr2013

...doesn't mean it won't be...


----------



## MarshallKnight

Yeah, I'm not terribly surprised, and really all I've been hoping for is a gem of a design with enough height to stand out above to 30 and 35 HY. But the 1400 ft. range is hardly a stretch for 61 floors, considering that most of them will likely have very high ceilings -- retail, trading floors, Class A office space, and luxury residential.


----------



## droneriot

No one _actually_ believed they would build a 549m tower there, did they...?


----------



## wilfred267

droneriot said:


> No one _actually_ believed they would build a 549m tower there, did they...?


Based on what Tishman originally submitted for the Hudson yards l thought nyet.


----------



## wilfred267

*exhibit A*


----------



## hunser

Hmm, with 61 floors the tower could reach the 1,312ft / 400m mark (spire and / or crown). Still, I'm a bit disappointed. How things are going, the Hudson Yards complex (along with Manhattan West) will be a plateau of supertalls with no real peak. The North Tower got a massive height cut and now this. Also, the Equinox Tower and Silverstein's residential tower are about the same height. New York has about 30 supertalls in the pipeline, but _none_ with a truly great height. For a signature tower you need a good design _and_ superb height.


----------



## UTEPman

Something doesn't add up. They bought a ~$500M plot and plan a $3.2B tower, yet it will only be 61 stories?

Sounds like a lot of money for a small tower. They'll probably revise a few things before this actually gets built. No way do they spend that kind of money on a ~1200ft tower, unless it's really fat.


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

This will be at least 400m.


----------



## patrykus

UTEPman said:


> Something doesn't add up. They bought a ~$500M plot and plan a $3.2B tower, yet it will only be 61 stories?
> 
> Sounds like a lot of money for a small tower. They'll probably revise a few things before this actually gets built. No way do they spend that kind of money on a ~1200ft tower, unless it's really fat.


Low doesn't mean small. Afaik this tower footprint should be big so there should also be lots of usable space available, hence return of investment


----------



## citybooster

Well, the good news is that this  going up a LOT faster than most expected with construction starting in the fall of 2015. But ONLY 61 stories? Even with super high floors I can't see how this tower breaks beyond 1,300 ft, 1,400 ft even WITH a spire. It better be a great design, but it was primed to pop more.... certainly not 2,000 ft or more like some wanted which wasn't going to happen but surely 1,600-1,800 ft with a spire. I would like to hear more about the plans, whether the 61 is the final floor count decided on or preliminary, and how high are the floor plates.


----------



## iamtheSTIG

If 61 is the final floor count then at 400m the average floor heights would be roughly 6.5m, even at 300m, theyd have to average at 4.9m which is still very high!
This would need a mega crown/spire to reach the 400m mark

And indeed Citybooster, when this tower was first announced i was expecting this to start around the 2018/19 mark! Great news in that regard! Aslong as the design is great, what more could we ask for?


----------



## patrykus

Manitopiaaa said:


> I doubt you'll find many NYC forumers cheering for that Spire tho :lol:
> 
> PS: A fellow Tulsan!



Why? I don't think everyone here is as biased as some few. I honestly don't care where it's build as long as it is world class icon as it is going to be if build :cheers:


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

iloveclassicrock7 said:


> Agreed. Now that 2,000 ft dream is in the hands of the other Spire.. :lol:


That's truly a dream, Don Quixote,


----------



## Hemeroscopium

Such a price tag for a 1300(?) tower!? Are rebars gonna be in gold?What kind of exclusive design could justify that!?.....Probably Calatrava is gonna be the architect,that's why!
In China,Dubai,wherever you want,you have three 2000f babies for 3.2b....


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

GiacomoPuccini said:


> Only in NYC, the skyscraper capital, lads!
> 
> Think about how Manhattan will be transformed in a few years:
> 
> 1. Nordstrom 1,450+
> 
> 2. Steinway 1,398
> [IM]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/10160702843_27a790e782_b.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 3. One Vanderbilt 1,350
> 
> [IM]http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/One-Vanderbilt-Massing.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 4. One WTC 1,350
> 
> [IM]http://www.glassfiles.com/sites/default/files/One-world-trade-centre%20_high_res.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 5. Hudson Spire 1,300+
> 
> 6. Time Warner 1,225
> 
> [IM]http://content.related.com/hyimages/hudson-yards-nyc-aerial-sunset-looking-west-dv-113012.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 7. 3 WTC 1,150
> 
> [IM]http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/146959905/original.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 8. Equinox 1,100
> [IM]http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153727076/original.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 9. Silverstein's 514 11th 1,100+
> 
> 
> 10. Girasole 1,050
> 
> [IM]http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/53ac8988f92ea15905005768/Screen-Shot-2014-06-26-at-4.55.40-PM.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 
> 11. Verre
> [IM]http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154871458/original.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 12. 22 Thames 1,000+
> 
> 13. 80 South St 1,000'
> 
> 14. Cetra Ruddy's UES tower 1,000+
> 
> 15. 220 CPS 950'
> 
> [IM]http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/220cps5.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 
> 16. 101 Murray 950'
> [IM]http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/101-Murray-Street-3.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 17. 4 wtc
> 
> 18. 30 Park Place 930'
> 
> [IM]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN8qoU3FDT5an8EXerbc28xazG_0ZjeuswSiGignKI2FcuI2_R[/IMG]
> 
> 19. 15 Hudson Yards 911'
> 
> [IM]http://content.related.com/HYImages/hudson-yards-nyc-living-here-15-hudson-yards-11th-avenue-view-dv-dsrdr-092012.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 20. 56 Leonard
> 
> [IM]http://56leonardtribeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/56-leonard.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 21. Coach 905'
> [IM]http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/original6.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> In addition, the following supertalls should be under construction within 5 years:
> 
> 22. 2 WTC
> 23. One Manhattan West
> 24. Park Lane
> 25. 31 W 57th
> 26. McCourt's 360 Tenth
> 
> 
> This is just what we currently know about for 950' or more!
> 
> This doesn't even take into account buildings in the 700' to 800' range, such as:
> 
> 27. 41 E 22nd;
> [IM]http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156421135/original.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 28. 250 E 57th;
> 
> 29. The Roseland Tower;
> 
> 30. The new Shangri-La on Lex;
> 
> 31. Baccarat;
> 
> 32. The new Stern Tower on E 60th
> 
> 33, JDS' twin towers by Shop near the UN
> 
> 34. Rodgers' new Park Avenue tower;
> 
> 35. Moinian's new 42nd St tower;
> 
> 36. Extell's new 10th Ave tower, etc., etc.
> 
> 37. Chinese Lantern on 11th
> 
> [IM]http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/470-11th.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> 38. 50 West Street
> 
> 39. New Tomes Sq Marriott
> 
> Lastly, there are scores in the 500 foot range, including, but not limited to:
> 
> 40. 400 Park Ave South
> 
> 41. BIG Pyramid
> 
> 42. 7 Bryant Park
> 
> 43. 20 West 40, etc., etc.
> Sent from my iPhone


You ever hear that analogy about the moon landing? How the Soviet Union landed on it first, sent probes and photographed it and all that jazz. Yet it the Americans who put a man on it first and only? This is compared to the Soviets making out with the 10 most beautiful girls at prom, but the USA fucking the prom queen in the back seat of a Camaro? Which one would you rather do?

New York can have all the tall buildings it wants. It can have hundreds if not thousands of supertall skyscrapers of every shape and size. But Dubai is fucking that prom queen, not New York.

And listing all the supertalls that NY has, in a commiseratory fashion, in a 'no wait guys, we've got all these beautiful women to make out with', smacks of desperation.

This is exactly why you should wait for more concrete information before rushing to put 549m in a thread title based on rumours and speculation.


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

When I read comments like that , I think of the song "Edelweiss," but I substitute "schadenfreude."


----------



## hunser

The city is experiencing a massive boom, even greater than the one in the 1920s/30s. 
What's still missing is a real signature tower. The limit for residential towers seems to be around 1,400ft, same with office towers. Just take a look at the Hudson Yards: we are getting a plateau of supertalls, but none will really stick out. 
Some figures (to the roof):
- Hudson Spire, ~1,200ft
- 30 Hudson Yards, 1227ft
- Silverstein's 520 West 41st Street, 1100ft
- 50 Hudson Yards, 1070ft
- The Girasole, 1050ft
- 35 Hudson Yards, 1000ft (likely to exceed 1,100ft). 
- Manhattan West Towers, both ~1,000ft

And not to mention the countless 900, 800 and especially 700 footers. This is all very good, but that part of the skyline won't have a real peak. What the city needs is a solid 1,600 - 1,700 foot tall tower to the roof, topped out by a nice spire. That would be the icing on the cake.

Furthermore there will be another plateau: 57th street. 
Some figures (to the roof):
- 217 West 57th Street, 1424ft 
- 432 Park Avenue, 1397ft
- 111 West 57th Street, 1350ft
- Shvo Central Park Tower, ~1,300ft
- One57, 1,005ft
- 220 CPS, ~1,000ft

Again, no real peak. And funny enough, 1WTC and 2WTC are very close in height too. I know that I'm spoiled. But still, the city desperately needs a tower which will soar above all the others. The Hudson Spire is / was a great opportunity to achieve that.


----------



## droneriot

hunser said:


> The city is experiencing a massive boom, even greater than the one in the 1920s/30s.
> What's still missing is a real signature tower.


I don't think it would have been wise to throw a tower the size it was advertised in an area that already has dozens of millions of square feet in development. If the boom continues, the signature tower will come, no doubt about it, and in less than a decade. But it will be in a different, less saturated area. Free market economies don't do entire "build it and they will come" CBDs like they do in planned economies. There's no central authority refunding the billions you invested if things don't go as planned.


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

200 Greenwich is 60 floors, and will be 1,349'.

http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-2


----------



## Hudson11

SomeKindOfBug said:


> This is exactly why you should wait for more concrete information before rushing to put 549m in a thread title based on rumours and speculation.


549m was a legitimate advertised height, not "rumors and speculation"


----------



## MarshallKnight

It was a legitimately advertised *possibility*, by the owners of the parcel to future developers, about what could be built there someday if they had the will. It was essentially an absolute maximum and was never realistic.


----------



## anhdungbk86

so great building, in my country is has any building like that 
http://skinfoodhanquoc.com/thefaceshop/35949.html
http://skinfoodhanquoc.com/iope/1167398.html
http://skinfoodhanquoc.com/laneige/1128953.html


----------



## bodegavendetta

I think it would look best if it were built around 57th street to give midtown a more prominent peak and accentuate the difference between midtown and downtown even more. But it will still have a positive impact on the skyline regardless of where it's built, I'm sure. 

Also, I really hope Calatrava is NOT the architect (and thankfully there are no signs pointing to this as of now).


----------



## MarshallKnight

Hemeroscopium said:


> Such a price tag for a 1300(?) tower!? Are rebars gonna be in gold?What kind of exclusive design could justify that!?.....Probably Calatrava is gonna be the architect,that's why!
> In China,Dubai,wherever you want,you have three 2000f babies for 3.2b....


Well you have to remember the huge discrepancy in the cost of labor between China/Dubai and the US. On top of that, building a skyscraper to LEED certification is super expensive; as is large, high-end retail and Class A office space. Probably most expensive of all will be the residential component -- if the tower is going to compete with Billionaire's Row, it's going to require the highest-end cladding materials and interior finishes imaginable. Think about 432 Park: every one of those 10x10 windows is insanely expensive; plus they hand picked the finest marble in the world for the interiors -- it all adds up.

The residential component could also include a large proportion of double-height units, which are increasingly becoming the norm, and that would stretch the height further than we're currently predicting.

But even if that's not the case, given the price tag, it's safe to expect something spectacular here, if not as tall as some of us might have hoped.



bodegavendetta said:


> Also, I really hope Calatrava is NOT the architect (and thankfully there are no signs pointing to this as of now).


I don't expect Calatrava to get much more work in New York after the Transportation Hub ran so ludicrously over budget.

Still, could be fun to debate who the best firm would be for this tower would be? I wouldn't be upset to see SHoP continue their dominant run in NY and get the bid; Foster could do something really nice, keeping with the industrial history of the area; KPF could potentially make the design purposefully coherent with their other towers in the Hudson Yards... but then, I don't think the main group of HY towers _is_ particularly coherent.

I would love love love for Zaha Hadid to get a shot at this, after she lost the bid for 425 Park. Or Annabelle Selldorf, whose mystery FiDi concept was a thing of beauty.


----------



## Jay

GiacomoPuccini said:


> 200 Greenwich is 60 floors, and will be 1,349'.
> 
> http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-2


It has about 60 *office* floors, the total floor count is over 70-75 or something but they say "88"


----------



## hunser

MarshallKnight said:


> I would love love love for Zaha Hadid to get a shot at this, after she lost the bid for 425 Park. Or Annabelle Selldorf, whose mystery FiDi concept was a thing of beauty.


I certainly wouldn't mind a 400m+ version of this ... :drool:


----------



## Hemeroscopium

Zaha hadid doesn't deserve working in New york or any city with a rich history.
She's probably ok for Doha,Dubai or Astana;New York is a kind of architecture museum and doesn't need flashy buildings that only pay homage to the ego of their designer.
Annabelle Selldorf is amazing of course.SHOP would probably do a great job...


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

Jay said:


> It has about 60 *office* floors, the total floor count is over 70-75 or something but they say "88"


The total floor count may be claimed to be 70 because 4 of the floors are trading floors with high ceilings. My point is that the number if floors means nothing. Since Tishman bought this site, those in the know predicted a tower of between 350 and 425m. The 61 floor figure does not change that, as demonstrated by 15 Penn, 1 Vandy, and 200 Greenwich.

Lastly, tishman stated that the 61 floors are an approximate figure.


----------



## Jay

GiacomoPuccini said:


> The total floor count may be claimed to be 70 because 4 of the floors are trading floors with high ceilings. My point is that the number if floors means nothing. Since Tishman bought this site, those in the know predicted a tower of between 350 and 425m. The 61 floor figure does not change that, as demonstrated by 15 Penn, 1 Vandy, and 200 Greenwich.
> 
> Lastly, tishman stated that the 61 floors are an approximate figure.


Right but like I said, for a signature tower it would be nice to have actual occupied space past 400m, 61 floors would go to maybe 300 meters or so plus an architectural element or whatever. 

The media really hyped this up, as well as Tishman saying they would build something iconic and very tall "Rivaling the buildings in Asia". We now know it won't be very tall but the design could still be somewhat iconic.

Floor count doesn't mean everything of course but it's very unlikely that a 61 floor building would even pass the roof height of ESB with a spire or crown or whatever and here we were assuming that it would likely be higher than 1WTC.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

GiacomoPuccini said:


> The total floor count may be claimed to be 70 because 4 of the floors are trading floors with high ceilings. My point is that the number if floors means nothing. Since Tishman bought this site, those in the know predicted a tower of between 350 and 425m. The 61 floor figure does not change that, as demonstrated by 15 Penn, 1 Vandy, and 200 Greenwich. Lastly, tishman stated that the 61 floors are an approximate figure.


Bingo!! Great point and I totally agree!! That figure means nothing. l

Cheers!!


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

Jay said:


> Right but like I said, for a signature tower it would be nice to have actual occupied space past 400m, 61 floors would go to maybe 300 meters or so plus an architectural element or whatever.
> 
> The media really hyped this up, as well as Tishman saying they would build something iconic and very tall "Rivaling the buildings in Asia". We now know it won't be very tall but the design could still be somewhat iconic.
> 
> Floor count doesn't mean everything of course but it's very unlikely that a 61 floor building would even pass the roof height of ESB with a spire or crown or whatever and here we were assuming that it would likely be higher than 1WTC.


A 400m tower with a great design would be iconic.


----------



## 1084790

..


----------



## GiacomoPuccini

My pleasure, Subsequence!


----------



## nyc15

after the surprise of thé nordstrom tower i hope that hudson spire goes same as this tower
i hope to sée this one exceed 2000 ft height!!


----------



## nyc15

GiacomoPuccini said:


> That's not going to happen. I think that it will be between 365 and 440m.


i am not agree with you because the future will say for us what will happen!!


----------



## onewtclover

On one hand, this is the Hudson Yards. We have so many tall towers this is literally the city inside a city. (I'm not misusing the word "literally"; the Hudson Yards alone can compete with some cities worldwide.) 

Of course we need something to stand out, but I think the Hudson Yards North Tower is enough. (That's not cancelled, is it? I haven't heard much from it recently.) but Tower E could make it lose it's dominance.

On the other hand, this is New York. 1776 feet is the universal speed limit in the city (just like C, the speed of light, is the universal speed limit in the universe.) to prove it, the Nordstrom Tower is 1775 feet. (I would have preferred for it to be 1771 feet or 540 meters, because then it would be shorter to the rest of the world, who uses the metric system). Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if this became 1775 or 1774 feet or even 1770 or 1700~ feet because of One World Trade.

But if this became taller than One WTC, it would encourage other developers to also build higher by breaking the "NY building barrier". And if it was taller, I would want it to become over 2000 feet, so we can compete with Asian and Middle Eastern cities. And this, along with Chicago Spire, can pave the road for future development in America. And I'd love something like the Nordstrom surprise.

But I don't think we're ready for this. I think we should let the World Trade Center have it's glory for at least 10 years, because it has so much sentimental value, considering the rebuilding and the symbolism and whatnot. I think that's more important than racing for world's tallest, for now.

And our buildings are good enough. Nordstrom Tower is going to surpass the pinnacle of Empire State and roof of Willis, making it the most dominant building in America. (I judge buildings' dominance based on their roof height. For example, even though One World Trade is officially 1776 feet, it would still look tiny in Shanghai because the spire is so thin compared to the body.)


----------



## (:

Ok let's get this straight, the world trade center would still look very large in shanghai. It would be the third tallest roof and second tallest pinnacle, and that is only to the shanghai tower witch is the second tallest in the world. being the second/third tallest in a huge city is very impressive. 
That said I don't think you have to much to worry about because yimby said that the Nordstrom would not keep its title for very long. Meaning that there is another building planned in NYC to become taller than 1,775 feet. And I don't think that they (shvo) will tie the WTC. As for this I don't think it will go over 1,400 feet. Especially after the floor figure.


----------



## onewtclover

Oh, sorry, I meant clustered with the Lujuazi (I have no idea how to spell it) trio. I saw a photoshop of One World Trade Center with its spire lit up. 

And I agree that this tower won't go taller than 1400 feet. One57 is 75 floors. It would actually be a stretch to have 1400 foot roof, but with spire that's easy. And there's still One Vanderbilt.


----------



## Jay

Maybe 61 is just the number of office floors and maybe it isn't final 

^^Me being really optimistic.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Maybe 61 is just the number of mechanical floors and it'll be 10,000ft high :dunno:


----------



## Jay

Manitopiaaa said:


> Maybe 61 is just the number of mechanical floors and it'll be 10,000ft high :dunno:


You know what I bet you're right. 

Looks like NYC will see a 10k footer!


----------



## Hudson11

*Vote Planned on new Hudson Yards Tower*

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/07/8548668/vote-planned-new-hudson-yards-tower



> The New York City Industrial Development Agency is poised to vote later this month on construction of a new tower within the vast Hudson Yards development project that would grant the property owner $170 million in tax breaks in exchange for multi-million-dollar contribution to expanding the Number 7 train and making other infrastucture improvements, city documents show.
> The developer also would be required to pay workers a "living wage."
> The I.D.A. has sheduled a public hearing for July 17, followed by a vote on July 22, on a $3.2 billion, 2.6 million-square-foot office and retail tower that would be built by the developer Tishman Speyer at Hudson Yards on Manhattan's west side.
> [...]
> The E.D.C. spokeswoman said Tishman Speyer would be required to comply with the city's living-wage law, which previously exempted a portion of the Hudson Yards project when it was passed in 2012 over the objection of former mayor Michael Bloomberg.
> That means Tishman's workers would be paid $10.30 an hour plus benefits, or $11.90 an hour without benefits, according to the latest figures on the living-wage rate, which has increased since the bill was passed.
> The spokeswoman said Tishman's project is separate from the Hudson Yards development being spearheaded by the Related Companies in that the living-wage exemption would not extend to this tower.


maybe a height figure will come out of that public hearing on the 17th. Minimum wage is 8$ for NYS, for those wondering reading the article.


----------



## j-biz

It's criminal that they consider $11.90/hr w/o benefits a living wage. That pretty much guarantees that you'll be living in the ghetto (if you're in NYC, at least). 

I wonder if that "multi-million-dollar contribution" would just go to the MTA coffers to offset their expenses, or if perhaps it would be put toward the cancelled station at 10th and 41st... not likely.


----------



## rlw777

j-biz said:


> It's criminal that they consider $11.90/hr w/o benefits a living wage. That pretty much guarantees that you'll be living in the ghetto (if you're in NYC, at least).
> 
> I wonder if that "multi-million-dollar contribution" would just go to the MTA coffers to offset their expenses, or if perhaps it would be put toward the cancelled station at 10th and 41st... not likely.


Yeah median rents at pretty much any neighborhood in the city is more than a months wages at 11.90 an hour


----------



## JosephShumpeter1883

Not really. Most apartments in NYC are rent-regulated.


----------



## j-biz

^^ If by most you mean less than half (link), then sure. On top of that, vacancy in rent-stabilized units is pretty much nil. For those that do exist, the scrutiny and competition are so intense that only the richest applicants are accepted. So basically, if you want a rent-regulated apartment, you better already have it. If you've come any time in the last 10 years, it's market rate for your ass.

Do you even know anybody who lives here??


----------



## Riley1066

Before the Hudson Spire is built, the developer should be required to build 15-20 middle to low income housing units elsewhere in the city. Same with the Nordstrom Tower group and Related Companies and Brookfield.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

Riley1066 said:


> Before the Hudson Spire is built, the developer should be required to build 15-20 middle to low income housing units elsewhere in the city. Same with the Nordstrom Tower group and Related Companies and Brookfield.


Why?? The Spire is a commercial office tower! They are not creating any housing with it. Even if they incorporate housing they don't because this project is fully assembled and as of right with rights to add a small % of residential to this site if they so choose. This is why you select an As-of-right development site. 

If TS is requesting for a zoning change to make the tower more residential than required then that could certainly be possible is my guess.


----------



## rlw777

JosephShumpeter1883 said:


> Not really. Most apartments in NYC are rent-regulated.


Well you're just wrong. 

$11.90 * 40 hrs = $476 per wk
$476 * 52 wks = $24,752 per yr
$24,752 / 12 months = $2,062.67 per month before taxes

Here are the median rents for a one bedroom in NYC neighborhoods... Living wage?


----------



## Manitopiaaa

What's with the Garment District? Always thought that area was kind of dumpy. UES is a bargain!


----------



## j-biz

I hear Brownsville is great in the summer.


----------



## desertpunk

China is emerging and Shanghai is very developed. *Let's focus on the topic here.*


----------



## Hudson11

I'm still hoping for a Pelli-eqsue design like this somewhere in the area, not including 15 Penn.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

*NYC buildings with mega price tags 

It’s not just 1 WTC — a look at other buildings with construction costs in the billions*
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/the-1-billion-plus-club/












> It’s no shock to hear that *1 World Trade Center*, the centerpiece of the famed Lower Manhattan development site, *has a construction price tag of $3.8 billion dollars.*
> But that world-famous tower is not the only New York City building that developers are forking over that much money to construct.
> 
> “New York developers are long on Manhattan and long on New York City,” said David Pfeffer, a co-chair of the construction practice at the Manhattan-based law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin. “They feel this is the place they can invest in these massively expensive buildings and get long-term returns on their investments.”
> 
> This month, The Real Deal looked at three other planned and under-construction towers — all located in the Hudson Yards area — which have $1 billion-plus price tags, according to paperwork that the development companies filed to obtain tax breaks with the New York City Industrial Development Agency, which is tasked with spurring economic development in the five boroughs.
> 
> The developers at those projects are apparently confident enough in the market to take the gamble and move ahead — that is once they have an anchor tenant.
> 
> Scott Singer, president of the financial advisory firm Singer & Bassuk, characterized the prevailing optimism: “It is the willingness to stake your reputation and financial well-being and relationships on a bet as to what market conditions will be years out in the future,” he said.
> 
> *Developer: Tishman Speyer
> Address: 509 West 34th Street
> Building size/type: 2.55 million square feet (office and retail)*
> 
> *Total cost of project: $3.29 billion*
> 
> The massive tower that developer Tishman Speyer has planned for Hudson Yards will be one of the most expensive office buildings ever built in Manhattan.
> 
> The 2.55 million-square-foot building planned for the block bounded by 34th and 35th streets and 10th Avenue and Hudson Boulevard East is slated to cost $3.29 billion — or about $1,289 per buildable square foot. *Construction is expected to start in the third quarter of 2015 and to be completed in four years.*
> 
> *The hard costs for the project — which include things like demolishing the existing buildings on the site and constructing the exterior shell — are estimated at $1.4 billion, according to Tishman Speyer’s IDA filing.
> 
> The soft costs, meanwhile, are pegged at about $1.1 billion. Among other things, that includes $356 million in loan interest charges and $200 million in commissions and additional leasing costs to rent the building, which does not yet have any signed tenants. Add in the cost of the land (which includes multiple parcels purchased at different times), and the total cost of the project comes to nearly $3.3 billion. (Tishman Speyer pegged the land at $768 million in its tax filing.)*
> 
> “The scale of these buildings is massive,” said Pfeffer, referring to both Tishman Speyer’s project and Related’s 30 Hudson Yards.
> 
> While Tishman Speyer declined to comment, real estate insiders told TRD most developers would expect a building to throw off an annual return of about 6 percent of the total construction cost once it is fully occupied. That would imply revenue of about $200 million per year — assuming office rents of about $90 per square foot.
> 
> *The building, which is expected to open in 2019*, is slated to be one of the largest in the city, although at only 61 stories, it will be shorter than the planned towers at Related’s neighboring Hudson Yards site.
> 
> Tishman Speyer, which is headed by the *father-and-son duo of Jerry and Rob Speyer, is financing half of the building with its own equity* and the other half with debt, according to the tax-cut filing.
> 
> The 50-50 split is not unusual for an office tower, Singer said. “Office development has historically been the most difficult to finance,” he said. “It is not surprising to see a high amount of equity expected to be required.”
> 
> *He noted, however, that developers typically wait to start construction until they have an anchor tenant signed on*.


----------



## citybooster

I'm still hoping the Tishman Speyer tower either gets 10 or more extra floors, especially with the Frank Mc Court 730,000 square foot tower possibly rising in the 1,300-1,400 ft range next to the to be newly glass reclad Manhattan 5. Either that or the floors are supersize high and it's topped by a signature crown or spire.


----------



## nyc15

is that possible to see this dramatic skyline in our future??


----------



## nyc15

nyc15 said:


> is that possible to see this dramatic skyline in our future??


nyc city has a tallest buidling but what miss for this city is a 2000ft tower. i wish that the hudson spir become the first and the faa authorise to build +2000ft building


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

Kyll.Ing. said:


> usafarid, is that you?


Looking at the above messages... am I right or am I right?


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

I Hope UBS choose to relocate and anchor one of the Hudson Yards Towers, specifically the Hudson Spire, 3 Hudson Blvd, Manhattan West or 2 WTC.

*If You’ve Got Train Fare, UBS Has Got An Exciting Opportunity In Stamford For You* 
http://dealbreaker.com/2014/10/if-youve-got-train-fare-ubs-has-got-an-exciting-opportunity-in-stamford-for-you/



> Since 2011, UBS has openly discussed/threatened the possibility of moving out of its building Stamford, CT, which houses the world’s largest trading floor, to points unknown in New York City. *The thinking behind the relocation was that the bank’s morale and profit issues boiled down to people not wanting to work in Connecticut, and that everything would turn around should they find themselves further south.* Recently, though, UBS hasn’t said much at all re: leaving the Nutmeg state, which makes this turn of events slightly awkward:





> Now, in the latest installment of the will-they-or-won’t-they saga, *the owners of the property at 677 Washington Blvd. which UBS has called home since 1997 retained brokerage firm Cushman & Wakefield to market the campus *in an effort to “evaluate all of their options,” said Cushman & Wakeman’s Stamford Vice Chairman Jay Hruska. Hruska, who has been tapped to handle the property’s listing, said the move to list the space is “separate and distinct to whatever UBS is doing,” adding the company “still has a lease that runs for several more years, and they still control the building.”


What is interesting is that they currently have their New York HQ located at 1285 Avenue of the Americas with aprox 700k sf of space and I believe that lease is up in 2017. Stay tuned! :cheers:


----------



## LondoniumLex

I'd be shocked if UBS doesn't move back to NY.


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ Good timing. If they decide to lease in a new tower, they should move quickly to get construction started in time.


----------



## The Lion

Come home, UBS!


----------



## JohnFlint1985

This area needs a dominant tower which truly sticks out... I think the decision to build only 61 floors is a shortsighted


----------



## Jay

JohnFlint1985 said:


> This area needs a dominant tower which truly sticks out... I think the decision to build only 61 floors is a shortsighted


Indeed... Hopefully it's not final


----------



## citybooster

The amount of floors need not be the most important thing as One Vanderbilt is supposed to be 67 stories yet go 1,514 ft or so with its 100 foot spire. A few more floors would be nice, and a height of 1,400-1,600 ft would give it prominence.


----------



## Hudson11

I've a feeling they might pull a 1 WTC and put up a 300 ft spire, lol.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Jay said:


> Indeed... Hopefully it's not final


all in all the whole West side mega development is pretty interesting and innovative. But in order to be a statement they need to break the record with something outstanding. given the huge footprint they have at their disposal I don't see the reason not to do this. They can easily build something with 3 mln sq ft and 90-110 stories high there. And it will not be another skinny stick-skyscraper either.


----------



## Jay

JohnFlint1985 said:


> all in all the whole West side mega development is pretty interesting and innovative. But in order to be a statement they need to break the record with something outstanding. given the huge footprint they have at their disposal I don't see the reason not to do this. They can easily build something with 3 mln sq ft and 90-110 stories high there. And it will not be another skinny stick-skyscraper either.


I totally agree, I kind of feel this way about NYC as a whole in terms of needing a signature tower. Obviously there is a ~1500 foot building to the roof in the works near central park but even that isn't much taller than many which are currently underway. However, on the other hand NYC will have an insane amount of 3-450 meter buildings, rivaled only by Dubai and maybe Shenzhen, so that's pretty awesome.


----------



## Hudson11

The Empire State Building will always be NYC's signature tower. What you' re hoping for is a new tallest along with the current boom. Semantics, I suppose, though no city in the world will ever construct a 1250 ft art deco tower the likes of the ESB again.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Hudson11 said:


> The Empire State Building will always be NYC's signature tower. What you' re hoping for is a new tallest along with the current boom. Semantics, I suppose, though no city in the world will ever construct a 1250 ft art deco tower the likes of the ESB again.


ESB is not disputed by anyone. but fact is that you can't go on forever on the fame built 80 years ago. we need more bold ideas with style, harmony and vision. lately there are very very few that I see. and this is pretty sad, since I am sure the ideas are there it is just the current developers are usually cheapskates trying to live this life with motto "2 for a dollar."


----------



## Blue Flame

Well, the ESB was roughly one sixth taller than any other building at the time. Even discounting the design if the current tallest planned tower is around 1500ft. to the roof, than a comparable icon that is one sixth taller than that would be around 1750ft. to the roof. Of course, I know that there is a lot more to consider than just height, but a 1750ft. roof with an excellent design wouldn't be anything to complain about. :colgate:


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Blue Flame said:


> Well, the ESB was roughly one sixth taller than any other building at the time. Even discounting the design if the current tallest planned tower is around 1500ft. to the roof, than a comparable icon that is one sixth taller than that would be around 1750ft. to the roof. Of course, I know that there is a lot more to consider than just height, but a 1750ft. roof with an excellent design wouldn't be anything to complain about. :colgate:


I agree. The main problem IMHO is not the height but lack of genuinely originality and ideas in design. Out of everything that is getting built in NYC and there are a lot of towers, only couple show some promise of truly great design. The rest... are OK, but not nothing more. It is surprising given the fact that there are truly good amount of space and zoning to build something spectacular. IN design and in height. I wonder when NYC will get out of this psychological prison of 1776 ft with the spire. Why not 2000 ft to the roof??? If not in NYC then where?


----------



## the man from k-town

Is this definitely shortened to 300+ ?


----------



## LondoniumLex

No.


----------



## Blue Flame

JohnFlint1985 said:


> I agree. The main problem IMHO is not the height but lack of genuinely originality and ideas in design. Out of everything that is getting built in NYC and there are a lot of towers, only couple show some promise of truly great design. The rest... are OK, but not nothing more. It is surprising given the fact that there are truly good amount of space and zoning to build something spectacular. IN design and in height. I wonder when NYC will get out of this psychological prison of 1776 ft with the spire. Why not 2000 ft to the roof??? If not in NYC then where?


I agree, and a 2000ft. roof would be tremendous for NYC. A good percentage of the new towers have very conservative designs that don't really show a lot of architectural ingenuity. I would love to see a building around 2000ft. to to the roof, and topped with a nice a spire that puts up an additionally 200-300ft. I know that is just wishful thinking, but really why not? The city could easily handle it. If any city could handle a 2000+ft. building, NYC is it.


----------



## LondoniumLex

This will likely be around 1,250 to 1,350. It won't be 2,000.


----------



## Hudson11

at 61 floors, the only way I can see this exceeding 1300' is with a spire.


----------



## LondoniumLex

Isn't 1 Vanderbilt about 65 floors? Also, I doubt that the number of floors is set in stone.


----------



## citybooster

I believe 67 floors, and talking about 1,414 ft to the roof the floors will be super generously high plated.... and another hundred or so feet for the Spire to take it to the current projected height of 1,514 ft. So it is way too early and I agree the 61 stories isn't set in stone. Nor would the lower number of floor numbers mean a remarkably shorter building.... I still expect it will have something decorative at top and somehow it will be if not 1,800 ft as first advertised, in the 1,500 ft range at least. I think Tishman-Speyer wants it to stand out in quality and architecture even if the height isn't gargantuan as it may have been(and who knows may yet still be)?


----------



## the man from k-town

What's 1400ft in meters ? approximately 400 not?


----------



## Blue Flame

the man from k-town said:


> What's 1400ft in meters ? approximately 400 not?


400 meters is approximately 1313ft. 427 meters is 1400ft.


----------



## Eric Offereins

All a lot of speculation. It makes little sense to build floor heights of 400/60 = 6.5 meter. Probably won't happen.


----------



## LondoniumLex

http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/mighty-metlife-in-talks-to-consolidate-at-namesake-tower/

"....Tishman Speyer Properties purchased the Hudson Yards building, which will be torn down in 2015 to make way for a gigantic super-tall 2.55 million-square-foot building with an estimated cost of $3.29 billion."


----------



## hunser

Well, I'm quite curious as to how this will turn out. They have the square-footage and the money. My guess is 1,400ft roof + 200ft spire = 1,600ft total. Could be a very nice supertall, but still not a signature tower [would need more height fot that]. 

Btw I'd disregard the low floor count for now (just take a look at 1 Vanderbilt and 30 HY...). I'm sure it will change in due time.


----------



## Maledives

:cheers:


----------



## LondoniumLex

Calling Mr. Dimon!


----------



## JohnFlint1985

the man from k-town said:


> What's 1400ft in meters ? approximately 400 not?


for the future reference: multiply the number you got in ft to 0.3 and you will get meters


----------



## LastConformist

JohnFlint1985 said:


> for the future reference: multiply the number you got in ft to 0.3 and you will get meters


Or close to it, anyway. The actual conversion is 0.3048 meters = 1 foot. 1400 feet is 426.72 meters exactly.


----------



## Eric Offereins

anyway, 2.55 million-square-foot is just huge.


----------



## LondoniumLex

I agree. I think that a lot of the square footage will be occupied by a huge retail podium.


----------



## tim1807

LastConformist said:


> Or close to it, anyway. The actual conversion is 0.3048 meters = 1 foot. 1400 feet is 426.72 meters exactly.


Those Americans and their funny measurement systems.


----------



## Dale

tim1807 said:


> Those Americans and their funny measurement systems.


The rest of the world is out of step.


----------



## gramercy

Dale said:


> The rest of the world is out of step.


some fraction of a step i imagine


----------



## rlw777

I would be surprised if they hit 1400 ft. 2.5 million sq ft is enough to hit that hieght I think that's about the amount of 2wtc. However 2wtc is planned for a significantly smaller parcel of land.


----------



## NatFan9

The official wtc website has 2wtc at 3.1 million sq ft. Not sure why everything else is ~2.5 million though


----------



## LondoniumLex

rlw777 said:


> I would be surprised if they hit 1400 ft. 2.5 million sq ft is enough to hit that hieght I think that's about the amount of 2wtc. However 2wtc is planned for a significantly smaller parcel of land.


It could easily surpass 1,500'. 1 Vanderbit is over 1,400' at 1.6m sf. Nonetheless, I think it will be 1,250 to 1,300', as I think it will contain a huge retail base.


----------



## weidncol

NatFan9 said:


> The official wtc website has 2wtc at 3.1 million sq ft. Not sure why everything else is ~2.5 million though


~2.5 million of office and the rest (mechanical, retail, etc) make up ~3.1 million figure.


----------



## citybooster

LondoniumLex said:


> It could easily surpass 1,500'. 1 Vanderbit is over 1,400' at 1.6m sf. Nonetheless, I think it will be 1,250 to 1,300', as I think it will contain a huge retail base.


 It may be to the roof, but if Tishman Speyer really wants some added prestige they add a significant crown or spire, get it to 1,500 ft or higher.


----------



## LondoniumLex

JIAMING & TISHMAN SPEYER PARTNERSHIP IN MANHATTAN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT

2014-10-22

"JIAMING signed a partnership agreement with well-known U.S.-based global real estate developer Tishman Speyer on 23 July 2014. Both parties will co-invest in the 509 West 34th Street Development Site in the Hudson Yards district of Manhattan. The total investment in the entire project is projected to be approximately USD3.2Bn, approximately equal to RMB19.6Bn.

The 509 West 34th Street Development Site is situated in the Hudson Yards district with a site area of 6,266sqm (67,451 square feet) and a plot ratio of 33.0. A 265,000sqm (2.85 million square foot) office tower is planned for delivery beginning in Q4 2019. 

The 509 West 34th Street Development is the 2nd largest development in the western Hudson Yards district by development area. The site’s large footprint provides flexibility to design a highly efficient building that offers tenants large, open floor plates as well as sweeping views of Midtown Manhattan and the Hudson River. Additionally, the site will offer build-to-suit opportunities to a diverse group of companies, attracting branded tenants in the pre-leasing market...."


----------



## Uaarkson

Oh snap.


----------



## Jay

2.85 msf?? waaaah? 

If that's not counting retail we got ourselves another 1WTC, perhaps taller.


----------



## Eric Offereins

Awesome! Seems there will be no worries about financing here. :cheers:


----------



## LondoniumLex

They clearly have a tenant in mind. JPMC and Salesforce are the most likely candidates.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

I think somewhere in the 1,400' neighborhood is realistic to the roof. Maybe they will decide to stick a spire on top and that would really make this tower stand out amongst the giants in the Hudson Yards. 

Then this development would truly deserve the name "Hudson Spire"


----------



## The Lion

Vertical_Gotham said:


> I think somewhere in the 1,400' neighborhood is realistic to the roof. Maybe they will decide to stick a spire on top and that would really make this tower stand out amongst the giants in the Hudson Yards.
> 
> Then this development would truly deserve the name "Hudson Spire"



I would be happy with that. 1,400 to the roof would stand out.

The Spire: 1,400 feet +/- ????

30 Hudson Yards: 1,284 feet
50 Hudson Yards: 1,068 feet?
3 Hudson Boulevard: 1,050 feet
35 Hudson Yards: 1,000 feet?
Manhattan West Tower: 995 feet
15 Hudson Yards: 914 feet
10 Hudson Yards: 895 feet
55 Hudson Yards: 780 feet
Three Manhattan West: 704 feet

Then you have the other Manhattan West tower and 360 10th Avenue.

It is truly amazing that we are seeing a brand new CBD being built in the nation's largest and most important city.


----------



## rlw777

LondoniumLex said:


> It could easily surpass 1,500'. 1 Vanderbit is over 1,400' at 1.6m sf. Nonetheless, I think it will be 1,250 to 1,300', as I think it will contain a huge retail base.


This is quite a bit bigger plot than 1 Vanderbilt... This is a Chicago sized piece of land here. Here is a little math to illustrate.

If they only used half of the site area 67,451 sq ft for ever single floor we are talking like 85 floors. 

Let's say there are 13 ft ceilings per floor we are at about 1100 ft.


----------



## LondoniumLex

It could be 1,100, but I'm guessing it will be around 1,350. The trend in NY is tall.


----------



## Jay

I agree with Robert but think it could possibly go higher (depending on how big the plot of land is). 

I'm not sure if that new 2.85 msf figure is accurate but let's assume it is and not including retail etc. It's very unlikely to be below say 350 meters to the roof and potentially could be over 400 even without an architectural element. I know they want their tower to be special and stand out so I think we will get something pretty amazing.

EDIT: Apparently the land plot is big, hopefully the tower isn't too fat. :/


----------



## (:

Well looking at Spyre's portfolio of properties it seems they go after iconic buildings, though they have never built them. They own many iconic buildings in midtown and I am sure they wouldn't mind owning the second most iconic behind ESB of course. I think they bought this sight intending to build something tall possibly even breaking 1,500' to the roof though I am expecting something closer to 1,400'.


----------



## j-biz

^^ Wouldn't it be fun to get a contemporary Deco beast in Midtown?


----------



## (:

As in stern?


----------



## Tower Dude

Is that the tower?


----------



## LondoniumLex

No. It was a massing diagram from the prior owner of the site.


----------



## harsh4461

will it going to be built


----------



## Hudson11

LondoniumLex said:


> No. It was a massing diagram from the prior owner of the site.


yes. Though between it and the 'Hudson Spire', that imagining is likely closer to the height of what will eventually be built, though we know nothing of the design.


----------



## LondoniumLex

As I walked by theNews Corp building yesterday, I thought: "I hope they move to the HY !"


http://nypost.com/2015/02/09/news-corp-to-consider-moving-locations-once-lease-expires/


----------



## Hudson11

Thank you, China!

http://www.jiaminginvestment.com/node/144?language=en












> JIAMING signed a partnership agreement with well-known U.S.-based global real estate developer Tishman Speyer on 23 July 2014. Both parties will co-invest in the 509 West 34th Street Development Site in the Hudson Yards district of Manhattan. The *total investment in the entire project is projected to be approximately USD3.2Bn*, approximately equal to RMB19.6Bn.
> 
> The 509 West 34th Street Development Site is situated in the Hudson Yards district with a site area of 6,266sqm (67,451 square feet) and a plot ratio of 33.0. A 265,000sqm (2.85 million square foot) office tower is *planned for delivery beginning in Q4 2019*. *The 509 West 34th Street Development is the 2nd largest development in the western Hudson Yards district by development area.* The site’s large footprint provides flexibility to design a highly efficient building that offers tenants large, open floor plates as well as sweeping views of Midtown Manhattan and the Hudson River. Additionally, the site will offer build-to-suit opportunities to a diverse group of companies, attracting branded tenants in the pre-leasing market.



I don't know which tower has >2.8msf to work with, unless they're referring to the dimensions of the site itself, which I'm not familiar of in relation to others.


----------



## LondoniumLex

NYG just posted something about the sole tenant on this site vacating! It seems that Tishman has a tenant. NY is out of control!!!


----------



## baseball1992

Hopefully they get started on demo and prep sooner rather than later.


----------



## iamtheSTIG

This could be interesting, does this mean they have part control over the design? 

China may want to make a statement in New York, so I hope they make the most of the square footage height wise!


----------



## LondoniumLex

I wouldn't be surprised if a Chinese company takes space here. Not to mention, the Chinese Consulate and Embassy to the UN needs new digs!


----------



## SomeKindOfBug

LondoniumLex said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if a Chinese company takes space here. Not to mention, the Chinese Consulate and Embassy to the UN needs new digs!


What is an 'Embassy to the UN'? Do you mean emissary? The Chinese Ambassador is in Washington DC, and there are no plans to move the Consulate General in New York from its current location.


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

fantastic news! I would think they may have a tenant lined up kind of like the same situation with that Japanese Corporation buying 55 Hudson Yards. So is it reasonable to say we can see ground breaking next year in 16' if completion date is 19' ?


----------



## LondoniumLex

SomeKindOfBug said:


> What is an 'Embassy to the UN'? Do you mean emissary? The Chinese Ambassador is in Washington DC, and there are no plans to move the Consulate General in New York from its current location.


I meant mission....


----------



## LondoniumLex

Morgan Stanley is another company that I can envision leasing a decent block of space.


----------



## Fotografer

Why changed height to the supertall?:?


----------



## LondoniumLex

It's always been listed as a supertall.


----------



## LondoniumLex

This city Is out of control, lads!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-getting-back-into-manhattan-s-office-market


----------



## WillBuild

LondoniumLex said:


> This city Is out of control, lads!
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-getting-back-into-manhattan-s-office-market


"Big banks, the once-dominant industry for Manhattan landlords, are getting back in the office market .. Deutsche Bank AG is in the market for about 1 million square feet (93,000 square meters) of space, enough to anchor a new building." and much more in the article

:banana:

Thanks for sharing, Lex!


----------



## LondoniumLex

My pleasure, sir!


----------



## Vertical_Gotham

En fuego!!!!


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

^You really haven't changed a lot since the usafarid days, have you?


----------



## MarshallKnight

I didn't realize there was a holdout situation here, but now that it's been resolved (per Curbed today), we should finally see some movement here!



> Tishman Speyer can finally move forward with their major Hudson Yards development now that they've *settled with two holdout tenants in court*. Crain's and the Post report that the two men who shared an apartment in an aging building that was acquired by the developer as part of its $438 million buy last spring settled with the major company for a hefty $25 million with the help of one of the city's most aggressive real estate lawyers. The two men are now living high in the sky on the 44th floor at a luxury building at 560 West 43rd Street called Riverbank West.
> 
> Now that the men have vacated their building on 35th Street and Tenth Avenue, *Tishman can proceed with developing the 2.3 million square feet of new residential and commercial space* they've plotted out for the block-long site at 435 Tenth Avenue and its adjacent site. The development parcel is just one block north of Related's Hudson Yards development, where its last holdout—a McDonald's—has finally given in to the developer's demands, awarding Related the last piece of its immense real estate puzzle.


----------



## rnsone

*A mega tall will rise at 435*

The 984foot aforementioned height, is in all likelyhood a "dummy" height. Many developers in NYC are doing this these days. The official height is shrouded in secrecy. I give you this one caveat though. It doesn't cost $3billion+ USD to build a 984ft tall tower. This megatall will rise, the original company that won the Hudson Yards project, lost it due to some red tape. Now they're in control of 435 Tenth ave., what better way to thumb your nose at the company that took over HY? By putting it in your shadow, figuratively speaking, lol.


----------



## TheIllinoisan

This isnt going to be a mega tall.


----------



## MarshallKnight

rnsone said:


> ... what better way to thumb your nose at the company that took over HY? By putting it in your shadow, figuratively speaking, lol.


 And literally!

I agree with you on a couple points, namely that the current figures (and even floor count) should not be trusted, that the $3bn is an eyewatering number even for NYC, and that Tishman may want to make a statement... That said, I don't think a megatall is realistic. So far, even the most lucrative new developments (all luxury condos) are only scratching the 1500ft range, and this will ostensibly be office, which has a lower return.

My guess is that this will wind up being a combo building with office below and residential above, and that Tishman will aim to overshadow HY and perhaps go for a new tallest roof. 

If I'm an oddsmaker in Vegas, I'm setting the over/under at 1400ft. Personally, I'm taking the over; wouldn't surprise me if we get something close to 1650.


----------



## Jay

TheIllinoisan said:


> This isnt going to be a mega tall.


Yea... I'm not sure what he's talking about lol. The latest height figure we've heard is 1200 feet but I really hope it ends up higher than that to be taller than the HY tower. ~1400 would be nice


----------



## Hudson11

Jay said:


> Yea... I'm not sure what he's talking about lol. The latest height figure we've heard is 1200 feet but I really hope it ends up higher than that to be taller than the HY tower. ~1400 would be nice


there has been no height figure release as of yet. We only have the advertised 1800' figure, and a preliminary floor count. (which led to numerous speculative heights - but nothing from the horse's mouth)


----------



## Jay

Hudson11 said:


> there has been no height figure release as of yet. We only have the advertised 1800' figure, and a preliminary floor count. (which led to numerous speculative heights - but nothing from the horse's mouth)


Maybe I'm confused with another project but I'm pretty sure I heard sometime this year that this tower would be 1200', I'll go see if I can find that info.

Of course even if that was said it might not be final.

EDIT: Here, post #12, of course this is not 100% reliable/is speculation but it's something...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217457&highlight=tishman+speyer








...


----------



## kingsdl76

*Height*

"If" developers go tall, the building will probably fall in the 1300 - 1600 ft range. However, only a few years ago I would not have believed that the Central Park Tower would rise to a roof height of 1550, so maybe something taller is in store; I certainly hope so! I'll tell you this, if NY is ever going to have a "Mega-tall," there is no better place than the Hudson Yards region.


----------



## Jay

^source?


----------



## Hudson11

Hudson11 said:


> http://www.jiaminginvestment.com/node/144?language=en


I wonder if Ping An US is interested in this project, they already partnered with Tishman Speyer and another Chinese firm for a Boston project, and this article heavily implies that they might be invested in a NYC project as well. 

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2016/01...vest-billions-through-new-us-real-estate-arm/



> [...]
> Ping An’s U.S. real estate presence thus far has been outside of the New York market, having partnered, alongside fellow Chinese insurance giant China Life, with Tishman Speyer for a stake in the developer’s $500 million Pier 4 waterfront development in Boston.
> But Singer said the new venture is “absolutely” looking at New York as part of its strategy to invest in core urban areas – citing the city as “the biggest and most important” of those core markets. *PARE U.S. is actively in “discussions with many of the large developers in New York,” he said, citing its “ongoing relationship with Tishman Speyer,” *and well as conversations with the likes of Silverstein Properties.
> [...]


----------



## tim1807

Ping An and Spires, they don't go along so well. :lol:


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ He shoots, he scores!


----------



## Tower Dude

If I remember the whole PAFT thing correctly it was more of how it was in a flight path Or something


----------



## tim1807

^^True, but that news was way too late.


----------



## towerpower123

Tower Dude said:


> If I remember the whole PAFT thing correctly it was more of how it was in a flight path Or something


Manhattan is a no-fly zone up to about 2000 feet high as a method of ensuring that no aircraft get close enough to buildings to crash into them. With 1300 foot towers rising at Hudson Yards, a 1454 foot tip of the ESB a few blocks east and towers up to 1800 feet tall north of this and the 1776 foot 1WTC south of this, flight paths should be no problem with regards to height.

Also, with regards to the site itself, the parking lot currently there is still actively taking reservations online and selling monthly passes. For some reason, it is sold out at midnight, unless they don't allow overnight parking...
https://www.parkwhiz.com/p/new-york-parking/435-10th-ave/?start_date=1%2F17%2F2016&start_time=1%3A00pm&end_date=1%2F17%2F2016&end_time=4%3A30pm&location_id=7357


----------



## Hudson11

:banana:


----------



## Ghostface79

^^ It does deserve a dancing banana.

*Terraced Tower Is Set to Rise Near the High Line*
http://canmua.net/new-york/terraced-tower-is-set-to-rise-near-the-high-line-397825.html





















> A rendering of the Spiral, Tishman Speyer's 65-story office tower. Photo: Tishman Speyer
> At the northern end of the High Line, Tishman Speyer is aiming to extend the park’s wild, natural beauty 65 stories into the air.
> The developer plans to build a $3 billion-plus office tower in the Hudson Yards district that will feature cascading terraces decked with foliage, atriums with ceilings as high as 23 feet and a glass facade. Conceptual designs for what is being called the Spiral will be formally unveiled Monday, launching the process of finding an anchor tenant.
> 
> *Designed by renowned Danish architect Bjarke Ingels*, the skyscraper has an outdoor terrace on every tenant floor with an adjacent atrium. A glass wall will separate the spaces.
> “This punctuates the High Line as the dot on the end of the question mark,” said Mr. Ingels, referring to the building in relation to the curve of the transformed elevated freight line. “This linear urban garden climbs higher and higher from the High Line to the skyline, if you like.”
> *The Spiral will rise 1,005 feet at 66 Hudson Blvd*., filling the block between West 34th and West 35th streets and 10th Avenue and Hudson Park and Boulevard. It will have 2.85 million square feet, with about 27,000 square feet devoted to retail shops.
> ...
> Tishman Speyer is looking to pre-lease about 30% of the building to obtain construction financing. The company already has secured more than $1 billion in equity from a group of international investors and has received approval for a 25-year tax abatement worth about $170 million, tapping into the incentives the city provides to developers in the district.


Reminds me a lot of the despised 2WTC.


----------



## Tower Dude

I like this tower, this is good. The terraced design invokes that post-war setbacks on Park Ave. Wished it ended up being a spire but this will do.


----------



## JohnDee

Hate Ingles work. His towers are boring deconstructivist boxes. NYC needed something like the Shanghai Tower here, or the SWFC, or something with an outline that wasn't another damn box! Wasted opp.


----------



## Scrapernab2

I like this as much as I dislike the former 2WTC design. I do wish it would 'keep going' up to a point, then it could be a BK beater!


----------



## Jay

Design is pretty good, height is relatively lame for this particular city.


----------



## bodegavendetta

I like it. If the terraces are that green, even better. And the effect of the spiral lit up at night has just the right amount of drama. This is great for an office tower.


----------



## CCs77

It is pretty interesting, many times here people are obsessed with a intrincated formality in a building for the pure sick of it. I prefer a building that brings something interesting other than just that. And anyway, I think this building just for the exterior form is pretty interesting anyway, simple but bold, not "just a box" as many says.

I much prefer the fashionable concept of garden in the sky which actually improves the experience of the occupants of the building, that the trend of twisting towers which doesn't add anything to that. The original of those, the Turning Torso is ok, since its sculptural form is iconic in that city, and it is eleganly designed, but many of others are not near as iconic as they pretend to be and are plain ugly.

And it doesn't matter if those terraces end up not being as green as depicted, that is not the main deal with that. It is for the people working on that building to have an outdoor space (combined with some indoor space) to gather or have a little break. Yes, there will be indeed many days were it will be to cold and uninviting to go ouside there, but there will be many other days that would be a pleasure (and I think that the pleasurable days will be more than the uninviting ones) so the existence of some nasty days during the year is not a reason for not doing that. Also it will give very good interior spaces.



Jay said:


> Design is pretty good, height is relatively lame for this particular city.


How in Earth the height could be "lame", at 1005 ft, if constructed right now, it will be tied at number 7 with ONE57, in the ranking of the tallest buildings in New York City (and that is including the spires of Chrysler, BofA and NYT) It certainly will fall out of the top ten once constructed, but still will be among the tallest of the city. And in a place, near the Hudson, that makes it stand out more that if located in the center of the island. Not every new building constructed has to be "the tallest".


----------



## geoking66

Ghostface79 said:


> Reminds me a lot of the despised 2WTC.


I'll never forgive BIG for 2WTC, but this doesn't remind me of it at all. I'm getting more of a Maha Nakhon vibe and that's a good thing.


----------



## citybooster

For what was touted as the potential Hudson Spire, not even going 1,400-1,500 ft (including a spire/crown ornamentation mind you) is a disappointment. Stand out, already.... be bold and creative...yes I know it's got BIG's quirkiness, and here I can get behind it too as opposed to WTC2(now that FOX is out of the picture, so should BIG). Yet I really hope this is preliminary, and that the height is increased by the time the foundation starts going vertical.


----------



## royal rose1

Bjarke's work is more and more becoming work that can only truly be admired from up close, and is a bit uninspiring from afar. His tetrahedron on the west side isn't like that at all. But his new work seems a bit uninspired. Sad, he used to be my favorite architect, and he's given way to SHoP and Snohetta being easy winners against him.


----------



## tinyslam

Looks like a conservative Maha Nakhon. That's not a bad thing btw as I do like this tower and how it will compliment the density of Hudson Yards.


----------



## tateyb

Tishman Speyer and Bjarke Ingels Unveil The Spiral



> Consisting of 2.85 million square feet of space in a 65-storey building, The Spiral aims to host offices and a six-floor podium with 27,000 square feet of first-class retail. Its exterior features a spiralling staircase of generous open spaces. Every floor of the tower will have its own dedicated terrace to enjoy, allowing workers to engage in a more flexible and dynamic work environment. A large amenity deck located on the seventh floor provides a common area for tenants to mingle. Featuring virtually column-free interiors and expansive ceiling heights, city and river views will be available in the building, which will likely achieve LEED certification of some kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Spiral site, image by towerpower123_


----------



## j-biz

*NEW YORK | 435 10th Ave. (ex Hudson Spire) | ~300m | ~984ft | 61 fl | Pro*

It's never a good sign when a rendering relies on a bunch of over-saturated greenery to create visual interest. Once management decides it's not worth the effort to maintain those terraces (which will probably be before it ever opens), anything interesting about this building will be lost.

This thing is totally lacking in grace. Comparing it to Turning Torso is a joke.


----------



## Jay

CCs77 said:


> How in Earth the height could be "lame", at 1005 ft, if constructed right now, it will be tied at number 7 with ONE57, in the ranking of the tallest buildings in New York City (and that is including the spires of Chrysler, BofA and NYT) It certainly will fall out of the top ten once constructed, but still will be among the tallest of the city. And in a place, near the Hudson, that makes it stand out more that if located in the center of the island. Not every new building constructed has to be "the tallest".


I said *relatively* lame, meaning for a city like NYC, 1005 is not much height. Of course not every building has to be a new tallest but we were led to believe it would be something much more than this.

It in itself is a decent building of decent proportions but for this site it's disappointing. 3 million square feet should have yielded us a signature tower higher than 30HY.


----------



## ledhead

Jay said:


> I said *relatively* lame, meaning for a city like NYC, 1005 is not much height. Of course not every building has to be a new tallest but we were led to believe it would be something much more than this.
> 
> It in itself is a decent building of decent proportions but for this site it's disappointing. 3 million square feet should have yielded us a signature tower higher than 30HY.


Totally agree. 
Bjarke did a pretty good job here, but the point is that everyone expected this to be the centerpiece of HY area. Considering the huge price tag and square footage (in the league of 30 HY and 2WTC,), it had the preliminar conditions to be a 1400-1500 footer, and for some of us, kind of thrilling knowing that BIG was involved. This could've been a truly spire, or maybe a size-wise brother for 30 HY. 
We ended up with a rather interesting tower, in terms of design , but kind of "meh" when it comes to height because what I mentioned above, altough it's still tall.


----------



## hunser

Well, it's not _super_ tall anymore, if all the neighbors are supertalls. :lol:


----------



## Manitopiaaa

At least it's a supertall. 

That said, there's nothing original about this at all. It's a box with random lines here and there. This is what I hate about Bjark. He tries to come off as some kind of architectural visionary. But this design has been done before! And let's be honest, those trees won't materialize. In the end it will be a giant box with a few lines. And it looks fat from the South, which was my main criticism of 2WTC (which looked fat from Tribeca). I was expecting much more out of this, but at least this will be hidden by the gorgeous Girasole and 30 Hudson Yards. 

It's a bit anticlimactic, no? The 1,800' will just be another tower lost in the skyline hno:


----------



## WillBuild

Reminds me a bit of the Viñoly building in Amsterdam.


















(mimoa.eu)


----------



## Jay

hunser said:


> Well, it's not _super_ tall anymore, if all the neighbors are supertalls. :lol:


These days I think a supertall is more like 380+ meters instead of 300, but 300 is still obviously a very tall building, just not in a place like Manhattan.


----------



## (:

Personally I am disappointed, the building itself is okay. It's nothing special, nothing new just good enough. It does annoy me that BIG thinks this design is something special. It's not. The tower this reminds me of most is just down the street in Times Square.


----------



## Godzilla Ranger NYC

Beautiful!

Just wish it was taller


----------



## The seventh shape

It would be fun walking up those steps.


----------



## CCs77

Jay said:


> I said *relatively* lame, meaning for a city like NYC, 1005 is not much height. Of course not every building has to be a new tallest but we were led to believe it would be something much more than this.
> 
> It in itself is a decent building of decent proportions but for this site it's disappointing. 3 million square feet should have yielded us a signature tower higher than 30HY.


Yeah I understood that. And I said that relatively to New York, if constructed today, it would be the 7th taller (and that is considering shorter-towers-with-spires-making-them-taller) and still would be among the top 20 when built, so I don't think the height would be "relatively lame"

Comparing it to 30Hy is a bit unfair since that has "only" 2,6 million sqft of office space, but it sits atop of an enormous retail podium, plus it has a huge entertainment/viewing area at the top. If you just take the observatory part of 30 HY off, it would be about the same height as this tower.

I sometimes don't understand why the people are always so obsessed with the height of the towers as an end in itself. They don't build them for being tall towers, it is a real state business. In the case of 30HY a taller tower works for them because they have that (expected to be very profitable) observatory area on the top, that isn't just the case here. You may say that all the towers in the Hudson Blvd will have similar heights, but what would make a building standout there won't be being the tallest of them, for potential tenants that won't matter so much, but the posibility of having different spaces inside the tower instead. And that is what they are aiming for, not for having the tallest tower.

And by the way, that Hudson Spire thing was never a serious proposal, just a marketing strategy.



j-biz said:


> This thing is totally lacking in grace. Comparing it to Turning Torso is a joke.


I never compared it to the Turning Torso, I said I prefer the "garden in the sky" trend, over than the purely formal "twisting tower" trend. And of turning torso I said that as the tower that inaugurated that trend, It indeed achieved its porpouse of being an iconic tower for that city with its sculptural and elegant form, but most of the twisting towers that came after, are not iconic and are rather ugly. That type of towers epitomize for me the trend of having something "different" just for the sick of it. The, "hey, let's make something _different_, let's make a twisting tower" attitude.






Here's a video of the tower. Those analogies with galaxies and DNA are kind of "whatever", but making that spiral in the building indeed serves a purpouse and it is not just a gratuitous formal thing. It is the external manifestation of two themes of the buildings: 1) having informal outdoor/indoor spaces accesible for the people working on every floor of the building and 2) the posibility for a tenant ocuping several floors to have its offices more vertically integrated than conventional "plate over plate" buildings. (Although this building has also basically a plate over plate scheme, that spiral allows for integrating them)


----------



## ElVoltageDR

I like it. Simple, with a bit of personality added with the spiral. I think it'll complement the surrounding buildings just fine given that it won't be as high.


----------



## Jay

CCs77 said:


> Yeah I understood that. And I said that relatively to New York, if constructed today, it would be the 7th taller (and that is considering shorter-towers-with-spires-making-them-taller) and still would be among the top 20 when built, so I don't think the height would be "relatively lame"
> 
> Comparing it to 30Hy is a bit unfair since that has "only" 2,6 million sqft of office space, but it sits atop of an enormous retail podium, plus it has a huge entertainment/viewing area at the top. If you just take the observatory part of 30 HY off, it would be about the same height as this tower.
> 
> I sometimes don't understand why the people are always so obsessed with the height of the towers as an end in itself. They don't build them for being tall towers, it is a real state business. In the case of 30HY a taller tower works for them because they have that (expected to be very profitable) observatory area on the top, that isn't just the case here. You may say that all the towers in the Hudson Blvd will have similar heights, but what would make a building standout there won't be being the tallest of them, for potential tenants that won't matter so much, but the posibility of having different spaces inside the tower instead. And that is what they are aiming for, not for having the tallest tower.
> 
> And by the way, that Hudson Spire thing was never a serious proposal, just a marketing strategy.


I can't name the 7th tallest, let alone the top 20 of most cities (other than many US ones), and it's not even as much about that it's how much it sticks out on the skyline. 1005 feet would look small next to the WTC and 432 Park avenue and there are many buildings in NY to come which will dwarf this thing. 

Aside from that, it might create an uncomfortable plateau at that height with the rest of the buildings... I mean it is unique looking so that's not a huge problem but still, from a distance a bunch of ~1000 foot flat topped buildings around 30 HY might look weird.


----------



## CityGuy87

Jay said:


> I can't name the 7th tallest, let alone the top 20 of most cities (other than many US ones), and it's not even as much about that it's how much it sticks out on the skyline. 1005 feet would look small next to the WTC and 432 Park avenue and there are many buildings in NY to come which will dwarf this thing.
> 
> Aside from that, it might create an uncomfortable plateau at that height with the rest of the buildings... I mean it is unique looking so that's not a huge problem but still, from a distance a bunch of ~1000 foot flat topped buildings around 30 HY might look weird.


There's still plenty of sites within the district that we have no clue about in terms of finalized plans such as Spitzer's site and 50 Hudson Yards. Also, SHOP is designing a supertall nearby and they never disappoint!


----------



## Manitopiaaa

CCs77 said:


>


Omg, this guy is SO full of shit!

"Spiral shapes appear in nature as the inevitable result of dynamic forces applied to matter. It's the spiral's immaculate geometry, and the suggestion of the _infinite_, that has mesmerized us in all cultures"

:toilet: :toilet: :toilet:


----------



## Brooklyn Rising

I love it at night. It'd be better with an extra 300 ft but oh well. Id on't know but it reminds me of this proposal a while back.


----------



## ledhead

Just a bit off topic: Did anyone noticed that in BIG's video of The Spiral, on the last scene wherethe show the view to south, they don't depict 2WTC? Maybe its some nonsense in my head, but I mean, it's the same guys who designed both towers, being the latter sort of a flagship or stellar, they could have made it appear.


----------



## Ghostface79

Manitopiaaa said:


> Omg, this guy is SO full of shit!
> 
> "Spiral shapes appear in nature as the inevitable result of dynamic forces applied to matter. It's the spiral's immaculate geometry, and the suggestion of the _infinite_, that has mesmerized us in all cultures"
> 
> :toilet: :toilet: :toilet:


He's pretty good at selling his crap to developers cause they keep hiring him.
Fair to say a lot of us here are disillusioned by him, he came out strong with W57 but since then it's been dud after dud.
This building isn't too bad but nothing great either, i'm actually wondering why Tishman would spend 3 billion on a slightly above average building in an up and coming location. At least Related's 30 HY will stand out and have the observation deck to increase revenue.


----------



## citybooster

Yeah, I though Tishman would use this opportunity to steal some thunder from HY.. remember, they were the original pick to develop HY before the economic downturn and Related seizing the opportunity once the Tishman bid fizzled out. You'd think Tishman would tweak Related by having a prominent tower built there, but this new BIG project seems more gimmicky than anything else and there's no reason they couldn't have tried to go to 1,400-1,600 ft with a crown or spire. Especially with close to 3 million square feet... well, maybe they will be like Related and change designs every time you see a new rendering. We can only hope so.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Torch said:


> *Behold The Spiral, Bjarke Ingels's Terraced Addition to Hudson Yards*
> Source and article with more renderings and video: NY.Curbed


Not a bad design overall for this place, but way too short. It should be about 1500 ft at the minimum or such a place


----------



## JuanPaulo

Overall an OK design but nothing spectacular. I think the shape is a bit too bulky. I don't know what is up with BIG and the proportions of their recently proposed towers....


----------



## DubaiM

I really like a lot of BIG's earlier projects, but the latest ones look like s***, honestly hno:


----------



## enrigue8

The vegetation make it look ugly ,even if design is not ugly.
Please dear architect, watch project in Shanghai,Dubai, Miami or Singapore and get inspired by them.
hno:


----------



## (:

Shanghai maybe but I think the best inspiration is just around the corner, these days New York has been creating countless iconic designs. I'd say BIG should look to KPF, RAMSA, or SHoP.


----------



## Spocket

enrigue8 said:


> The vegetation make it look ugly ,even if design is not ugly.
> Please dear architect, watch project in Shanghai,Dubai, Miami or Singapore and get inspired by them.
> hno:


Everywhere but Dubai.

I like Dubai and love what they're doing there. However, most of it looks to be about 20 or 30 years behind the times in terms of fashionable architecture. I'm not saying they don't have some great buildings but so much of it is gaudy or post modern. I can only think of a couple notable buildings worth mentioning that stand out as iconic in any sense. I'm sure there are others of course (maybe the city is full of them) but they don't stand out in any way which is one thing you need a building to do to be considered iconic.


----------



## hunser

Someone should copy Verre's design and make it 1,600ft. :yes:


----------



## TallestKidOnTheBlock

Another chunky, clumsy design from BIG. Not nearly as bad as 2 WTC, but still ... when will they stop terrorizing the NYC skyline?


----------



## BLACK DAHLIA

LOL!!!...At 21 am i overaged for lurking there??....


----------



## Shenkey

I would way prefer it, if it would not get smaller and those terraces would be just cut into the building.


----------



## francais22

enrigue8 said:


> The vegetation make it look ugly ,even if design is not ugly.
> Please dear architect, watch project in Shanghai,Dubai, Miami or Singapore and get inspired by them.
> hno:


Don't worry. The only vegetation you will is on the rendering.


----------



## generalscarr

I like the interconnected floors. I've found that only a few hundred people on your own open floor don't make enough noise to fully distract you from work, I've always felt the need to listen to other jackasses a few floors above and below while trying to work.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

^^ That Chicago Spire has to be at least 3,000' It should end where the photo cuts off.


----------



## nyc15

this is what we need to complet the hudson yards project , we have juste to add the old hudson spire


----------



## droneriot

Still a few plots around the area, and the air rights wasted with the Spiral must go somewhere!


----------



## Eric Offereins

^^ Those air rights are quite expensive, so I would expect a decent tower.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Er, as awesome as that sounds in theory, I don't believe there are any additional air rights. The "Hudson Spire" proposal was also 2.5 million square feet -- the Spiral is using all of that 2.5M, just with far larger floorplates in a shorter tower.


----------



## Oatmeal

MarshallKnight said:


> Er, as awesome as that sounds in theory, I don't believe there are any additional air rights. The "Hudson Spire" proposal was also 2.5 million square feet -- the Spiral is using all of that 2.5M, just with far larger floorplates in a shorter tower.


May I ask what exactly happened that made it so the Hudson Spire was canceled? I dont know anything about it. Thanks.


----------



## droneriot

It wasn't cancelled because it was never an actual proposal by a developer but by the owners of the plot to advertise the possibilities for air rights the plot has.


----------



## MarshallKnight

*NEW YORK | 435 10th Ave. (ex Hudson Spire) | ~300m | ~984ft | 61 fl | Pro*

Yeah you can get a pretty good summary of the original transaction in the top post... but essentially, two land owners were in the market to sell their adjacent parcels at the same time, and a marketing team worked up the 1800 foot "Spire" concept as a sales tool, since selling both parcels together would truly be a blockbuster sale. 

They definitely did some creative thinking to stretch a 2.5 million square foot development into an 1800-footer, since this was presumably going to be mostly office space and going that tall would require small floor plates that would be better suited to residential or a hotel. But it certainly *looked* impressive in the renders towering over Related's huge development...

Which is why some of us have wondered whether the Spire design was specifically envisioned to attract Tishman-Speyer, who did wind up buying both parcels. Tishman had originally won the bid to develop the Hudson Yards in 2008, but had to back out of it just two months later due to the financial crisis. We (and presumably the marketing team) figured that Tishman would want to seize the opportunity to save face after the embarrassment of 2008 by claiming the tallest tower on the West Side.

But the more conservative, shorter tower they've proposed suggests that Tishman doesn't think that way; whether they were cowed by the events of 2008, it seems they're trying to play it smart and safe... Personally I think hiring BIG to design a "showstopper" will pale in comparison to the effect a much taller tower would have had, and potentially run up the costs so that this more conservative solution might not ultimately save them that much.

But then again, I'm not a real estate developer, so what do I know. Maybe thousand-foot-high outdoor terraces are a huge selling point and these offices will go like hot cakes.


----------



## WillBuild

Great summary, thanks!

Perhaps they calculated that the residential market is too soft right now to justify a trophy building with apartments at the top.

I really don't understand how this rather standard office building can be so expensive to build.


----------



## MarshallKnight

There may also be zoning restrictions/requirements for the site that precluded them from topping things off with a residential/hotel component, I don't honestly know. 

I do have to think that the type of resi units Tishman would have to sell to make a good ROI would be of the ultra-high end variety (especially given the gaudy $3bn price tag which I simply do not understand)... The Hudson Yards area is new and exciting, but I don't see it supporting Billionaires Row price points anytime soon.

The most recent models we've seen of 50 HY (the two tower variant, and the setback single tower with the narrow upper volume) make me think that Related may be experimenting with that kind of mixed use program, rather than a full on 2.5 million square feet of office. So maybe we will see both strategies play out side by side.

It's too bad; 435 10th and 50 HY are basically identical projects on the stat sheet. Woulda been pretty cool if they'd collaborated on twins.


----------



## towerpower123

It appears as if they will soon tear down those brownstones on the corner. The other parking lots are still in use.


----------



## Oasis-Bangkok

509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## towerpower123

Demolition is imminent as the scaffolding has appeared.


----------



## JohnDee

This building is another corporate HY box with a little marketing spin, and I'm rather appalled at how little imagination we are seeing here. I'm disappointed in how much like Canary Wharf on Hudson this complex has become. Any provincial capital in China has more impressive towers than HY has. Check out Greenland Center in Wuhan for something that HY should have had.


----------



## JohnDee

WillBuild said:


> Given the name, I always thought dusting off the design of the abandoned Chicago Spire would be perfect.
> 
> I'm too lazy to photoshop it into a HY overview, but you get the idea:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crazy expensive, no doubt, but then apparently that dull BIG box also costs over $3B? :nuts:


For example, this is the kind of thing that NY needs. Something that will make it compete with China!


----------



## Ghostface79

*Pfizer set to move into The Spiral on far West Side*
http://nypost.com/2017/08/25/pfizer-set-to-move-into-the-spiral-on-far-west-side/



> Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has chosen Tishman Speyer’s dramatic new office skyscraper The Spiral for its new headquarters, The Post has learned.
> 
> Although it wasn’t clear whether a lease has yet been signed, Pfizer has definitively made up its mind on the planned Hudson Yards-area cloudbuster, where it will take about 800,000 square feet, sources familiar with the situation said late Thursday.
> 
> The 65-story, 2.85-million rentable square-foot Spiral is designed by Danish starchitect Bjarke Ingels. To rise west of 10th Avenue at 509 W. 34th St., the $3.2 billion, 1005-foot-tall tower takes its name from stepped, tree-filled terraces on all four sides that curl upwards around its façade like a necklace.
> 
> Pfizer’s decision marks an another giant leap forward for the Hudson Yards District, an official west of Ninth Avenue city zoning designation that includes both the 26-acre Hudson Yards complex owned by Related Cos. and several different partners and Brookfield Property Partner’s 7-acre Manhattan West.
> 
> The district also includes two development sites whose owners need an anchor tenant to break ground — The Spiral and Joseph Moinian’s 3 Hudson Boulevard at 11th Avenue and 34th Street.
> 
> Once completed, the lease with Pfizer will allow Tishman Speyer to get The Spiral out of the ground, sources said. Pfizer had also considered the Related and Brookfield sites among other options.


----------



## geoking66

This is my favorite building in Midtown West along with 30/10 HY and the move was rumored for a while, so I'm glad that it's confirmed or at least likely at LOI stage.


----------



## JohnDee

When is this Bjarke tower going up? Better be soon i hope. We need it to cover the Foster monstrosity next door.


----------



## SydneyCarton

Foster's tower is not a monstrosity. It's somewhat bland for a $4b tower, but I'm sure it will turn out beautifully.


----------



## Guest

Chicago Spire belongs in a red light district.


----------



## WillBuild

SydneyCarton said:


> Foster's tower is not a monstrosity. It's somewhat bland for a $4b tower, but I'm sure it will turn out beautifully.


Both boxes are giant missed opportunities.


----------



## JohnDee

WillBuild said:


> Both boxes are giant missed opportunities.


Not really unless you expected Ny office towers to suddenly break tradition. Developers of office buildings build conservative functional office buildings in ny. The spiral is a nice tower.


----------



## WillBuild

JohnDee said:


> Not really unless you expected Ny office towers to suddenly break tradition. Developers of office buildings build conservative functional office buildings in ny. The spiral is a nice tower.


One Vanderbilt, 30 Hudson Yards, 3 WTC. Hell, 1 WTC.

Developers still know how to build slender aspiring office buildings.

Or otherwise distinguished ones, like the New York Times building, Hearst Tower and Bank Of America building.

It's a shame when $4B only buys a box.


----------



## JohnDee

I think the spiral is a more interesting building than any of those you listed besides Hearst. AT least the spiral tries something unusual and progressive.


----------



## Chris666

downtown become into the rear...think after hudson tower there comes a MEGATALL over 1000m for Downtown.


----------



## JohnDee

Chris666 said:


> downtown become into the rear...think after hudson tower there comes a MEGATALL over 1000m for Downtown.


It would totally dwarf the rest, including the WTC - probably ruin the skyline. Won't be happening anyway, way too tall for NYC, especially downtown.

Most likey place for a mega tall is probably on top of a demolished Madison Square Garden, if that ever happens. Maybe it would be possible there, but I don't think it's gonna be happening for a long while.

Midtown is the future, not downtown. Businesses prefer the transport links in midtown.


----------



## Luca9A8M

1 October 2017

509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr

509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr


----------



## kingsc

It would have been interesting to have the Hudson spire & Nordstrom towers go up at the same times. They design are similar that why I wasn’t annoyed when they killed HS.


----------



## JohnDee

This tower is at least more interesting than another corporate box like 50HY, and 55 HY. The Spire would have been nicer, but unfortunately I don't think that was an office tower so it wouldn't have been going up anway.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

JohnDee said:


> This tower is at least more interesting than another corporate box like 50HY, and 55 HY. The Spire would have been nicer, but unfortunately I don't think that was an office tower so it wouldn't have been going up anway.


My heart breaks every time I see this beauty. The Hudson spire :master: Hopefully something like that in the future .


----------



## Hudson11

A source over on the YIMBY forum says foundation work will begin late Spring. The site was cleared as of late December. Photo by ILNY:


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## germantower

The size of this plot makes you realise what a beast this building will be.


----------



## josh85

Hoping this turns out better than the renders. This building isn't bad, but I think it also fails to excite or inspire, and is about as creative as the terraces on Trump Tower. 

If it weren't next to more boxes I'd probably like it more. But it'll be right next to 50&55 HY, and 3 Hudson Blvd's, and now we've just fallen into the same ole' (albeit with great quality materials, and interesting patterns.)

Hopefully the Western Yard will have some super modern architecture, and what follows The Spiral down the line will take some more chances. I'd love to see some Chinese supertalls.


----------



## germantower

^^ Wait until its done and the spiral carved into the tower is lit up at night. This tower is going to be amazing.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17218714/hudson-yards-new-york-bjarke-ingels-spire-construction Construction will begin this summer. Hoping the trees and those gardens dont make it.


----------



## Guest

I keep getting excited to see this thread bumped only to realize it's anything but _The Spiral_ now. Another boring shiny blue building.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

TheProdigySkylined said:


> I keep getting excited to see this thread bumped only to realize it's anything but _The Spiral_ now. Another boring shiny blue building.


But it will actually look good at night tho


----------



## Guest

Modestas Gailius said:


> But it will actually look good at night tho



Then I will only come out at night. :evil:


----------



## MarshallKnight

Modestas Gailius said:


> https://ny.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17218714/hudson-yards-new-york-bjarke-ingels-spire-construction Construction will begin this summer. Hoping the trees and those gardens dont make it.



I’d actually like to see some greenery up there to break up all the glass. But I suspect keeping all those trees alive at those elevations will be very tough, so you may get your wish when all is said and done.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

MarshallKnight said:


> I’d actually like to see some greenery up there to break up all the glass. But I suspect keeping all those trees alive at those elevations will be very tough, so you may get your wish when all is said and done.


They can make from plastic ones :lol:


----------



## JohnFlint1985

Is there a new render of the proposed building? I hope it is something higher than all the rest. This site needs a truly dominant building if it wants to stand out.


----------



## Twopsy

I thnk the idea of the spiral will not work as well as in the video, as on at least two sides you will not have balconies with much light and a nice view, but rather just look at buildings next door that are about equally tall. A building like that should stand somewhere alone, ao that you can appreciate it more from all angles.


----------



## Twopsy

Do I understand this article right that this tower will cost $3.7 billion?

https://therealdeal.com/2018/04/30/dutch-pension-fund-invests-in-tishman-speyers-hudson-yards-tower/


----------



## WillBuild

Twopsy said:


> Do I understand this article right that this tower will cost $3.7 billion?


Yep. It's madness.


----------



## JohnDee

Looking good, nice progress on the site.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

WillBuild said:


> Yep. It's madness.





Twopsy said:


> Do I understand this article right that this tower will cost $3.7 billion?
> 
> https://therealdeal.com/2018/04/30/dutch-pension-fund-invests-in-tishman-speyers-hudson-yards-tower/


Well its New York what did you expect


----------



## Architecture lover

JohnDee said:


> Check out Greenland Center in Wuhan for something that HY should have had.


I suppose I agree on this part. The Greenland Center finds the perfect balance, it's eccentric but not too much, something brave going in that direction could've been great for H-Yards, NY.


----------



## Twopsy

Modestas Gailius said:


> Well its New York what did you expect


I just compare it with other buildings in New York. If I remember it right, the whole Time Warner Center had construction costs of $1.7 billion and One World Trade Center was about $4 billion. The Spiral is a supertall, but not very spectacular. It will not dominate Hudson Yards.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

Twopsy said:


> I just compare it with other buildings in New York. If I remember it right, the whole Time Warner Center had construction costs of $1.7 billion and One World Trade Center was about $4 billion. The Spiral is a supertall, but not very spectacular. It will not dominate Hudson Yards.


Manhattan is experiencing a construction boom so i would say its something to do with that also.


----------



## Guest

Twopsy said:


> I just compare it with other buildings in New York. If I remember it right, the whole Time Warner Center had construction costs of $1.7 billion and One World Trade Center was about $4 billion. The Spiral is a supertall, but not very spectacular. It will not dominate Hudson Yards.


Is it still called The Spiral? How about calling it The Unravel instead?



Modestas Gailius said:


> Manhattan is experiencing a construction boom so i would say its something to do with that also.


_Mr Blue Cladding Inc_ will surely be making a mint :cheers:


----------



## Hudson11

TheProdigySkylined said:


> _Mr Blue Cladding Inc_ will surely be making a mint :cheers:


I don't think the sky cares much for money :dunno:


----------



## Guest

Hudson11 said:


> I don't think the sky cares much for money :dunno:


I think you missed my joke. It was about the overuse of blue cladding throughout these developments.


----------



## chjbolton

Such a dull tower... Unless the lighting saves it.


----------



## Guest

chjbolton said:


> Such a dull tower... Unless the lighting saves it.


The trees will save it. :banana:

But yeh another dull New York skyscraper especially considering how many of the other cities in the East are getting such unique looking buildings. :bash:


----------



## josh85

Another boring blue glass box, with a lazy gimmick to try and make it seem unique.

HY is quickly becoming a giant missed opportunity, with an insistence on building more soulless drab boxes. And don't forget that across from this they're trying to build another boring blue glass box, 3 Hudson Blvd.


----------



## JohnDee

TheProdigySkylined said:


> The trees will save it. :banana:
> 
> But yeh another dull New York skyscraper especially considering how many of the other cities in the East are getting such unique looking buildings. :bash:


The old cranky money grabbing phillistine developers who only like dull safe modernist boxy designs are the problem. . Guys like Solow, Ross, Silverstein, Barnett etc wouldn't know good architecture if it hit them in the ass..of course it all comes down to costs, but these dudes don't show me that they give much of a shit about creating beauty anyway because so many designs are sub par barring a couple of trophy towers. I wouldn't be surprised if they enjoy giving the design budget the short stick from the crap we have seen go up around the area and elsewhere.


----------



## JohnDee

josh85 said:


> Another boring blue glass box, with a lazy gimmick to try and make it seem unique.
> 
> HY is quickly becoming a giant missed opportunity, with an insistence on building more soulless drab boxes. And don't forget that across from this they're trying to build another boring blue glass box, 3 Hudson Blvd.


Nobody in that industry truly cares about design, they care about squeezing more profit and saving cash that coulda gone on a flashier pad. They are interested in design only as a way to market a tower and one up their competition when necessary but not for beauty or making a city beautiful. Sad but true. .


----------



## WillBuild

I would not call 35 or 55 HY boring blue boxes. To begin with, they're not even predominantly blue.

Hudson Yards proper includes other conscious choices, including 30 HY itself, as well as the Shed and the Vessel.

There are a lot of boring boxes going up. Like nearby 3 Hudson Blvd (if that ever happens) and the Spiral.

But Ross and Related deserve praise instead of the above shaming for the choice of diverse styles, attention to cladding and bold features.

To be clear, I don't like all of it. But that's not the point. Boring it is not.


----------



## iiConTr0v3rSYx

^^ Everyone’s a critic. This site is truly remarkable. Not for what the buildings look like, but how they’re being built, over an active rail yard. A whole new mini city built before your eyes!


----------



## JohnDee

iiConTr0v3rSYx said:


> ^^ Everyone’s a critic. This site is truly remarkable. Not for what the buildings look like, but how they’re being built, over an active rail yard. A whole new mini city built before your eyes!


Meh, the site is remarkable, but looking at what China is building on those CBD sites, the architecture leaves a lot to be desired. Where is something as spectacular as the Shanghai Tower, the CTF Center, the Dalian Greenland Center? How about something as beautiful as the Shard in London? 
Nope. Deformed boxes.


----------



## Uaarkson

JohnDee said:


> Meh, the site is remarkable, but looking at what China is building on those CBD sites, the architecture leaves a lot to be desired. Where is something as spectacular as the Shanghai Tower, the CTF Center, the Dalian Greenland Center? How about something as beautiful as the Shard in London?
> Nope. Deformed boxes.


Hate to break it to you dude but you're way in the minority on this one. NYC is building endless classy, modern architecture.

NYC is not and never was a place for goofy starchitecture (okay maybe here and there). The designs here are of a refined quality that is few and far between in countries like China. London is building some cutting edge shit but not nearly as much as they are in Manhattan.


----------



## joeyoe121

If NYC was filled with funny looking towers it would not create a uniform urban fabric with the historic skyscrapers and streetscapes that make the city so beautiful and striking. I think one or two stunning and very elegant statement towers like the Shard, 53W53, 30 St Mary Axe are enough without cities ending up looking like cartoons. London allowed 20 Fenchurch Street and 70 St Mary Axe and they look ridiculous in their wider context or buildings from the 1950s, 1930s, 1800s etc. Hong Kong (Island) doesn't have hundreds of bizarre shaped towers and it's skyline is very impressive still


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Uaarkson said:


> Hate to break it to you dude but you're way in the minority on this one. NYC is building endless classy, modern architecture.
> 
> NYC is not and never was a place for goofy starchitecture (okay maybe here and there). The designs here are of a refined quality that is few and far between in countries like China. London is building some cutting edge shit but not nearly as much as they are in Manhattan.


London has gotten too into "avant garde" starchitecture. The City of London looks like a jumbled mess of buildings that don't fit together all trying to call attention to themselves: Walkie Talkie, the Gherkin, the Scalpel, the Can of Ham, the Cheese Grater. They're nice individually but together it's a complete disaster.


----------



## Riley1066

JohnDee said:


> Meh, the site is remarkable, but looking at what China is building on those CBD sites, the architecture leaves a lot to be desired. Where is something as spectacular as the Shanghai Tower, the CTF Center, the Dalian Greenland Center? How about something as beautiful as the Shard in London?
> Nope. Deformed boxes.


Shanghai Tower looks like an extruded poo ... Everything in Shanghai's "Skyline" is a jangled, disconnected mess ... and The Shard would be lost in Manhattan, actually the Shard would probably be perfect for Brooklyn or Jersey City ...


----------



## geoking66

Uaarkson said:


> Hate to break it to you dude but you're way in the minority on this one. NYC is building endless classy, modern architecture.
> 
> NYC is not and never was a place for goofy starchitecture (okay maybe here and there). The designs here are of a refined quality that is few and far between in countries like China. London is building some cutting edge shit but not nearly as much as they are in Manhattan.


London may not be building as many tall buildings as New York (for geographic, zoning and historical reasons), but the scale of redevelopment is probably at the top of the list for any western city. The number of regeneration zones and master-planned schemes is hard to wrap your head around. As for quality and architectural merit, London wins hands down in my book. The materials, finishing and aesthetic are fantastic, up there with Tokyo.


----------



## joeyoe121

Publications and people on here do monthly crane counts which seem to act an good basic barometer of development activity.....Dublin has 78 tower cranes, Manchester has 59, Toronto has 80, Seattle has 42...I haven't seen one for London, I wouldn't want to be the person responsible for it that's for sure :lol:


----------



## JohnDee

joeyoe121 said:


> Publications and people on here do monthly crane counts which seem to act an good basic barometer of development activity.....Dublin has 78 tower cranes, Manchester has 59, Toronto has 80, Seattle has 42...I haven't seen one for London, I wouldn't want to be the person responsible for it that's for sure :lol:


Whats NYC up to? Surprised with Dublin, another Celtic Tiger?


----------



## JohnDee

Riley1066 said:


> Shanghai Tower looks like an extruded poo ... Everything in Shanghai's "Skyline" is a jangled, disconnected mess ... and The Shard would be lost in Manhattan, actually the Shard would probably be perfect for Brooklyn or Jersey City ...


Ok, i see. Well, everybody has their own opinion on a tower design.. it's pointless to discuss it further. Where you see a poo, I see an elegant spiral soaring up like the tower of babel, heh.


----------



## JohnDee

geoking66 said:


> London may not be building as many tall buildings as New York (for geographic, zoning and historical reasons), but the scale of redevelopment is probably at the top of the list for any western city. The number of regeneration zones and master-planned schemes is hard to wrap your head around. As for quality and architectural merit, London wins hands down in my book. The materials, finishing and aesthetic are fantastic, up there with Tokyo.


Ah, ok. Cool. Must look up some of these design projects in London then.


----------



## germantower

JohnDee said:


> Meh, the site is remarkable, but looking at what China is building on those CBD sites, the architecture leave a lot to be desired. Where is something as spectacular as the Shanghai Tower, the CTF Center, the Dalian Greenland Center? How about something as beautiful as the Shard in London?
> Nope. Deformed boxes.


What exactly do you like about CBDs in China, which CBDs do you exactly mean and what is there better according to you compared to NYCs multiple CBDs?


----------



## Guest

JohnDee said:


> Ah, ok. Cool. Must look up some of these design projects in London then.



No need they are mostly meh. One project called The Pinnacle (22 Bishopsgate) in the city was worth a look.....until they downgraded it. Now it's anything but a _Pinnacle_.....


From this.










To this.










:cripes:


----------



## SydneyCarton

I think that 22 Bishopsgate looks great.

London and New York have many great projects. They are the financial and commercial capitals of the world, so it makes sense that there's demand in both places.


----------



## SydneyCarton

JohnDee said:


> For example, this is the kind of thing that NY needs. Something that will make it compete with China!


NY doesn't need to compete with a third-world, authoritarian, dictatorship that deprives people of any and all human rights. Try staging a public commemoration of Tianeman Square in China, and see how long it takes to get beaten and arrested by the Chinese gestapo.


----------



## Guest

SydneyCarton said:


> I think that 22 Bishopsgate looks great.



Why? What's so great about this downgrade? Is it the way it almost looks like the developers are giving the plebs the finger with the look of this design?


----------



## droneriot

How can it be a downgrade from that crooked wrap thing that was thankfully never built?


----------



## Guest

droneriot said:


> crooked wrap thing



Why is everything always about food with you??!!


----------



## JohnDee

germantower said:


> What exactly do you like about CBDs in China, which CBDs do you exactly mean and what is there better according to you compared to NYCs multiple CBDs?


Their skyscrapers.


----------



## JohnDee

The London skyscraper decision was a shame, but the replacement is not awful.


----------



## Middle-Island

Uaarkson said:


> Hate to break it to you dude but you're way in the minority on this one. NYC is building endless classy, modern architecture.
> 
> *NYC is not and never was a place for goofy starchitecture* (okay maybe here and there). The designs here are of a refined quality that is few and far between in countries like China. London is building some cutting edge shit but not nearly as much as they are in Manhattan.


Yes, just as we don't see the need to convene a council on "weird buildings", either. :lol:

Vanderbilt, Tower Verre are daring enough, as they complement and try to respect the classics other cities lack -- cities that essentially lacked actual skylines 25 short years ago in many cases. Why do some keep comparing architectural apples and oranges? Damn it's all relevant, I suppose. As much as Oriental Pearl looks cool in Shanghai, imagine those globes on a stick in The Battery. Shudderiffic.









_Shanghai 1993 vs. 2010_

How about 1990? 











Dubai


----------



## Hudson11

as per an update over at the YIMBY forums, prep work has commenced.


----------



## Guest

How depressing....for New York.


----------



## TheIllinoisan

TheProdigySkylined said:


> I'm referring to the Hudson Spire on page 1 of this thread. To call this giant elongated blue brick with some cute foliage 'The Spiral' is laughable. One of the worst downgrades in history.
> 
> 
> Hudson Yards would have been just right to feature a 2000ft building.


The "Hudson Spire" was never going to happen. It was barely even a legitimate vision. This current proposal is a handsome design that will serve as a springboard for greater designs to come.


----------



## Architecture lover

Oh really? Good luck gaining the right to go this tall again.


----------



## Guest

TheIllinoisan said:


> The "Hudson Spire" was never going to happen. It was barely even a legitimate vision. This current proposal is a handsome design that will serve as a springboard for greater designs to come.



Well I'm not so easily pleased and I don't think I am alone.


----------



## Jay

Architecture lover said:


> Oh really? Good luck gaining the right to go this tall again.


While I did expect something in the 400+ meter range I don't think there was ever an actual plan to build the Hudson Spire placeholder vision as it was just that. (As TheIllinoisian mentioned)

If I'm not mistaken there are a few sites around the Hudson Yards/Grand Central and maybe downtown where 400+ meter buildings will be built in the future in NYC. Just how much higher than 400 will they go? I'm not sure but I don't really think NY needs a mega tall to maintain status as the skyscraper capital.


----------



## phoenixboi08

TheProdigySkylined said:


> Well I'm not so easily pleased and I don't think I am alone.


Sorry....?
You could try turning that frown upside-down, tho? 





Jay said:


> ...I don't think there was ever an actual plan to build the Hudson Spire placeholder vision as it was just that. (As TheIllinoisian mentioned)


More than that, it (like so many of these 'concepts') are simply exercises for architecture firms to get marketing buzz and publicity. The tell-tale sign that it wasn't going to happen was the air rights, which probably would have made it quite un-workably expensive (ie. it would have had to be skinny to the point of having an inconsequential amount of square footage that would necessitate residential/hotel mixed uses that may not pencil out so well). 

That the design never got any updates/re-works should also have been a clear signal that it was solely meant to gin up excitement for development in the n'hood.



Jay said:


> I'm not sure but I don't really think NY needs a mega tall to maintain status as the skyscraper capital.


This is a discussion we'll be having on this forum in perpetuity, as long as the sophomoric minds of men who itch for superlative races exist.
But there are clear functions between national economies, agglomeration process, and shifts in urban land values which creates windows in which these types of development take place. 
Those windows inevitably close -- and any future ones are only ever fractions of it in scope -- with the prevalence of such _superlative-talls_ decreasing substantially (ie. there have been an increasing number of these proposals quietly being walked backed/tabled in China, over the last 5-6 years).

What developers _do_ continue to care very much about, however, is the amount of leaseable space they can pack into any land assemblage.


> this giant elongated blue brick with some cute foliage


, as was so eloquently put, is about 70% *larger* (_3.6m sqft. vs 1.2m. sqft, based on existing materials_) than the Hudson Spire.

That's why these buildings continue to be built the way they are.

Because no one else cares about _superlative-talls_ except you and your friends .
That is, the symbolism of these as some kind of economic marker of status/progress only exists in your mind, and constant opining on these paper flowers is rather borish.

Please stop it.


----------



## Hudson11

@archartdescon on instagram


----------



## Guest

phoenixboi08 said:


> no one else cares about _superlative-talls_



No one cares or wants supertalls that are supposedly superlative eh? :lol: 

So you prefer this design to the original proposal? If so why?


----------



## Architecture lover

phoenixboi08 said:


> Because no one else cares about _superlative-talls_ except you and your friends .
> That is, the symbolism of these as some kind of economic marker of status/progress only exists in your mind, and constant opining on these paper flowers is rather borish.
> 
> Please stop it.


Then I must be the only one that comes across tons of thousands of tourists who could book a trip to Shanghai only for the sake of seeing its twisted more than 600 meters tall megatall? 
Dubai wasn't even a thing before Western architects didn't start making their desert look livable.
I'm not saying New York should build its skyscrapers for tourists, because obviously that's not how you plan cities. As for Dubai I was never really a fan, and I am truly not sure if I'll ever be since it's too far away from my taste.
What I'm saying is that a megatall in New York could look extremely beautiful. Architecture exists as a different field for a reason, you know that? Sometimes not everything revolves around the economy, in antiquity the Greeks pushed highest quality constructions not because they were easy to build (or economic), but because it gave them a sense of greatness to have massive marble temples towering the hills of Athens. They were obsessing with whats economical (the word itself is Greek) and wrote countless of books about it, yet cared enough to have dignifying architecture. 
People like the idea of seeing something that haven't been seen before - a new achievement, otherwise it'll be a dull world. If it really pleases you I wouldn't say megatalls for New York (well at least not as frequently), but it won't change the fact New York will see the day of having a megatall at some point. Even if you dislike the idea of tall constructions (I doubt) you'll have to learn to live with it. When some of the Hudson Yards developers said clearly in interviews that they don't consider the Manhattan Tower as a supertall (in other words they've said it isn't exactly a supertall by contemporary standards) that's when I've realized that, yes - developers themselves care about status and what's considered a global achievement in terms of height.

A real big developer always keeps in track with what's going on in the world, it's part of the job. When people say developers give no damn about height it makes them appear ignorant to what's going around the globe, I can reassure you, that's not the case.


----------



## philip

His design looks similar to Maha Nakhon Building in Bangkok, but Maha Nakhon is better proportioned.


----------



## droneriot

I think a megatall in NYC will only happen one way. Not the way we're used to in NYC, that a developer builds it and then finds big companies as tenants, but the other way around, that a big company commissions it, asks a developer "we need a HQ in New York and we need it huge."


----------



## Luca9A8M

14 October 2018


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, su Flickr


----------



## Luca9A8M

16 November 2018


20181116_114007 by Christopher Estevez, su Flickr


----------



## Jay

Drawings have this at 1,031 feet (315 meters) above the street (1064 above sea level).

Title change? 

from SSP:


----------



## Hudson11

proposed structural height of 1064' submitted to the FAA. This could be an ASL/AGL discrepancy considering the elevations used for the diagrams. 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=389501471&row=95


----------



## droneriot

Seeing the drawing makes me think it would look a lot better in dark grey or black (and without unnecessary stuff on the balconies.) But everybody loves blue nowadays, so...


----------



## WillBuild

droneriot said:


> Seeing the drawing makes me think it would look a lot better in dark grey or black (and without unnecessary stuff on the balconies.) But everybody loves blue nowadays, so...


Agreed.

Blue mirror glass is a plague.


----------



## Zaz965

I would like golden cladding like this :grass:


----------



## streetscapeer

a mock up:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpIjSL-gp_K/


----------



## Hudson11

this should start rocketing up in the New Year. As 30 Hudson Yards and One Manhattan West finish up, two new office behemoths begin their ascent. 

*Tishman Speyer’s BIG Supertall Spiral Gets Ready To Rise Above Ground at 66 Hudson Boulevard, In Hudson Yards District*


----------



## Hudson11

photo by ILNY


509 West 34th Street (The Spiral) by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr

this is the 20th supertall under construction or completed in NYC (including 2 WTC)

Downtown | One World Trade Center – 1776’ [1368']
Midtown | 432 Park Avenue – 1396’
Midtown W. | 30 Hudson Yards – 1268’ - T/O
Midtown | Empire State Building – 1250'
Midtown | Bank of America Tower – 1200’ [945']
Downtown | Three World Trade Center – 1079’
Midtown | 53w53rd (Tower Verre) – 1050’ - T/O
Midtown | Chrysler Building – 1046’ [925']
Midtown | New York Times Building – 1046’ [748']
Midtown W. | 35 Hudson Yards – 1009’ - T/O
Midtown | One 57 – 1004’
Midtown W. | One Manhattan West – 995’ - T/O
Midtown | Central Park Tower – 1550'
Midtown | 111 w 57th Street – 1438’
Midtown | One Vanderbilt – 1401’ [1301']
Downtown | 45 Broad Street – 1200’
Downtown Brooklyn | 9 DeKalb (340 Flatbush Extension) - 1066’
Midtown W. | 66 Hudson Boulevard (The Spiral) – 1031’ 
Midtown W. | 50 Hudson Yards – 1011’ 
Downtown | Two World Trade Center – 1270’ - On Hold


----------



## streetscapeer

@robharperjr


----------



## Hudson11

Hudson Boulevard is going to be such a fantastic public realm.


----------



## Hudson11

Tower crane going up.


__
http://instagr.am/p/p%2FBsk5Nb4jkyc/


__
http://instagr.am/p/p%2FBsmQuNVjgwh/


__
http://instagr.am/p/p%2FBsn7hsIDwUs/


----------



## Riley1066

Hudson11 said:


> Hudson Boulevard is going to be such a fantastic public realm.


I hope that they build that "Sports Bridge" across the Lincoln Tunnel Ramps:


----------



## Hudson11

@danimal_nyc on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

two cranes up. 









@martydepo on instagram


----------



## tallmark

Does anyone know the final looks and the usage plans for this project?? Thanks


----------



## tallmark

droneriot said:


> I think a megatall in NYC will only happen one way. Not the way we're used to in NYC, that a developer builds it and then finds big companies as tenants, but the other way around, that a big company commissions it, asks a developer "we need a HQ in New York and we need it huge."


You mean not the capitalistic way, but the mechantalist style like Jeddah, Bombay, etc etc? A rich potentate orders it being built for a megalomaniac reasons? Please, not in Gotham, the capital of capitalism. It MUST make economic sense or no go. Instead, here in NYC we have invented the "Mega Thins" that none other town has it.


----------



## Hudson11

^^ it's 2.85 million square feet of offices with ground floor retail.



Jay said:


>


----------



## SydneyCarton

Really nice!


----------



## Hudson11

https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/mark...otos-construction-progresses-the-spiral/28401


----------



## Munwon

Is there a better rendering?


----------



## Hudson11

Munwon said:


> Is there a better rendering?


https://www.thespiralny.com












3 Hudson Boulevard will eventually block the tower from this angle.


----------



## Uaarkson

Awesome. I knew from day one that each of these individual designs was going to pop in the context of the greater Hudson Yards.


----------



## ushahid

looks like coronation square in Malaysia.
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...NLgAhWC2YMKHXmqDNoQMwhEKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8


----------



## Hudson11

about ready for liftoff. I'm so excited to see two big block office supertalls rise next to each other. 35 and 55 Hudson Yards will both be blocked from this viewpoint. 2 Manhattan West will be sneak into the picture soon as well. 









@deutschje on instagram


----------



## PsyLock

IMO, the best designed tower of the group. I can't wait to see this rise.


----------



## Hudson11

some leasing news. 

*AllianceBernstein to move to Hudson Yards*



> AllianceBernstein has made a decision to move its New York City office to the Hudson Yards.
> 
> The investment firm is negotiating a deal to take around 200,000 square feet in The Spiral, a 2.85 million square foot office tower under construction in the West Side neighborhood, several sources said.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Last year, the company announced it will relocate its headquarters and the bulk of its operations, including its top executives, to Nashville to cut costs.
> 
> The company’s spokeswoman said the company’s transition to Nashville will be completed by the end of next year and that it plans to move a little over 1,000 jobs in the relocation. It will maintain a scaled-down New York City office, she said, for the teams that oversee its roughly half a trillion dollar investment management businesses. About 850 employees will remain in the city.


----------



## Luca9A8M

15 March 2019










Source: Field Condition, http://fieldcondition.com/blog/2019/3/15/construction-update-hudson-yards


----------



## Hudson11

@vinweasel_ on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

@margalid_a on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

The Vessel by milfodd, on Flickr


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bv4uxumHwT1/













https://www.instagram.com/p/BufSdvsAqxo/


----------



## MarshallKnight

So you want to make a multi-billion dollar office tower look messy and cheap? Try flimsy metal mesh railings on all the balconies...


----------



## Motherussia

What a coincidence that this scraper is the same height as the "spiral" one in Bangkok, Thailand.


----------



## Hudson11

MarshallKnight said:


> So you want to make a multi-billion dollar office tower look messy and cheap? Try flimsy metal mesh railings on all the balconies...



I'm hoping that's temporary. But knowing Bjarke's obsession with cubes, probably not.


----------



## streetscapeer

MarshallKnight said:


> So you want to make a multi-billion dollar office tower look messy and cheap? Try flimsy metal mesh railings on all the balconies...


lol I'd just assumed that those were placeholders, but I think you're right.... bad design choice for an overall decent mock-up


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwsatZEBtz6/












https://www.instagram.com/p/Bwr9NjoA1zC/


----------



## Riley1066

MarshallKnight said:


> So you want to make a multi-billion dollar office tower look messy and cheap? Try flimsy metal mesh railings on all the balconies...


That may be mesh for vegetation.


----------



## MICHAELG3000

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxTZ3yxgzGg/


----------



## exodius

^ So there's 3 projects happening at once in that pic, huh? I wonder which tower will top out first!


----------



## germantower

^^ 55 Hudson Yards which is the tower to the left is already above street level.


----------



## exodius

germantower said:


> ^^ 55 Hudson Yards which is the tower to the left is already above street level.


Corrected my post to say which would top out first  My mistake!! :nuts:


----------



## uakoops

^^ The tower under construction on the left is 50HY. 55 is the almost completed building at the upper left corner.


----------



## germantower

exodius said:


> Corrected my post to say which would top out first  My mistake!! :nuts:


And I thought that I was the one who misread your post. :lol:

And yes, its not 55 but 50 Hudson Yards.


----------



## PsyLock

This is my favorite tower of them all. It's boxy, but it has other design elements to it that stops it from being boring.


----------



## Hudson11

DP2M0715 by jeffrey montes, on Flickr


----------



## SMCYB

PsyLock said:


> This is my favorite tower of them all. It's boxy, but it has other design elements to it that stops it from being boring.



Like what?


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bxl10dCnZGi/


----------



## Hudson11

the blue monoliths rise...


----------



## SMCYB

^^ Because nothing makes all world cities look more alike than blue monoliths.


----------



## Hudson11

@rdchin53 on instagram


----------



## meh_cd

So tired of the blue glass. Materials science has come a long way since even the early 2000s, and I hope more architects start to experiment with new materials in the coming decade.


----------



## JohnFlint1985

One thing that haunts NYC after 9.11 is its fear to break over 300 meters and go to lets say 500 or 600 meters.


----------



## ZZ-II

Indeed, Itˋs time for a Megatall in NYC ^^


----------



## BrooklynNYC

JohnFlint1985 said:


> One thing that haunts NYC after 9.11 is its fear to break over 300 meters and go to lets say 500 or 600 meters.


NYC is market-driven. It is challenging to building at 600m without losing tons of money.... unless there are others reasons for doing so.


----------



## WillBuild

With boring 1000 ft boxes costing 4B around here, yes, megatalls are a tall order.

Though another sensible reason is the preference from companies for larger floor plates. Buildings like Starrett LeHigh and 111 8th Ave pack a lot of usable floor space in few floors. These new towers are similarly designed to maximize usable space.


----------



## meh_cd

Indeed, I've always been a fan of the failed New York Stock Exchange Tower from the 80s. Basically a superior version of what we ended up with at 1 WTC. Blegh, I suppose it might be time to finally wash my hands of it and move on.


----------



## joeyoe121

The Starrett LeHigh building is beautiful....those windows!! A tower has just been proposed in London that is a similar shape to the old NYSE proposal. 

It's largely the same in many cities, London, NYC, Dublin etc etc, office buildings are designed and built to offer grade-A space at a competitive price to the market with specifications that are in demand, and the market wants large, column-free and open plan floor plates with big windows and easy shapes, i.e. squares/ trapeziums etc. 

When the commercial market wants curvy spindly office towers covered in trees and architectural flare, I imagine the construction market will build them :lol:


----------



## meh_cd

Of course, but that does not mean the buildings must lack all flair and use the same color windows. Some variety is not going to hurt, although I did see that perhaps the new JP Morgan tower that is proposed may use some bronze color in the design, so that may be a start.



joeyoe121 said:


> The Starrett LeHigh building is beautiful....those windows!! A tower has just been proposed in London that is a similar shape to the old NYSE proposal.
> 
> It's largely the same in many cities, London, NYC, Dublin etc etc, office buildings are designed and built to offer grade-A space at a competitive price to the market with specifications that are in demand, and the market wants large, column-free and open plan floor plates with big windows and easy shapes, i.e. squares/ trapeziums etc.
> 
> When the commercial market wants curvy spindly office towers covered in trees and architectural flare, I imagine the construction market will build them :lol:


----------



## Hudson11

@whickywhit on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

@tonymcateer1 on instagram


----------



## chjbolton

Blue box heaven...

F**k it I'll just say it: so far, Hudson Yards is a bit of a disappointment


----------



## droneriot

I'm not sure what your expectations were if you are disappointed. Did you figure they'd decide to ditch the renders and build a bunch of Singer/Chrysler/Woolworth Building type towers instead? Right now we're being delivered exactly what was promised.


----------



## A Chicagoan

^^ I'm quite satisfied with what Hudson Yards has become. It seemed like just yesterday that I was in New York staring an unfinished 10 Hudson Yards in amazement.


----------



## LeCom

My CityRealty article

https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/mark...039-1032-foot-hudson-yards-office-tower/32121

*Steel ascends at The Spiral, Bjarke Ingels' 1,032-foot Hudson Yards office tower*

By Vitali Ogorodnikov
Today, June 20, 2019

The first phase of Hudson Yards has opened just three months ago, yet another pair of supertalls is already racing to the sky next door. A thicket of steel beams and tower cranes has sprouted at 35 Hudson Yards, aka The Spiral, architect Bjarke Ingels' 66-story office behemoth that will climb to 1,032 feet, higher than the Chrysler Building.









https://ds3.cityrealty.com/img/5f3e...-new-york-skyline-skyscraper-construction.jpg
_Credit: Vitali Ogorodnikov_

The skyscraper will pack 2.2 million square feet of office space within the 2.6 million-square-foot structure.









https://ds1.cityrealty.com/img/d838...-new-york-skyline-skyscraper-construction.jpg
_Credit: Vitali Ogorodnikov_

To the south, The Spiral faces 50 Hudson Yards, where a concrete core has begun its ascent to the 1,012-foot pinnacle.









https://ds3.cityrealty.com/img/24fc...ffice-new-york-skyline-skyscraper-terrace.jpg
_Credit: BIG_

The sheer glass curtain wall will match the prevailing theme at Hudson Yards. However, the tower’s namesake feature, which spirals up the facade in setback terraces, is a delightful touch that will make the tower stand out among an ever-densifying skyscraper crowd.









https://ds2.cityrealty.com/img/5983...ice-new-york-skyline-skyscraper-rendering.jpg
_Credit: BIG_

The skyscraper footprint spans the whole block between 10th Avenue, Hudson Boulevard, and West 34th and 35th Streets. This important junction joins 34th Street, the main east-west thoroughfare in Midtown South, and the verdant Hudson Boulevard, the principal north-south anchor of the emerging Far West Side.









https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/60d2...rk-skyline-skyscraper-construction-update.jpg
_Credit: Vitali Ogorodnikov_

Hudson Boulevard provides much-needed open space and pedestrian flow through the otherwise long blocks, animating the streets in a manner lauded by urban theorist Jane Jacobs.









https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/da70...onstruction-update-city-night-34th-street.jpg
_Credit: Vitali Ogorodnikov_

At the moment, The Spiral marks the northern frontier at Hudson Yards. The recently completed plaza, shopping center, and office complex to the south already bustles with foot traffic from dawn till dusk. By contrast, parking lots and car garages still line the blocks to the north. However, in the coming years, Hudson Boulevard will continue its unrelenting northward march, carrying another wave of development and urban vitality. By the time the Spiral tops out about a year from now, we expect to see more projects rising from the adjacent fallow ground.









https://ds1.cityrealty.com/img/4b89...levard-office-new-york-skyline-skyscraper.jpg
_Credit: BIG_









https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/f04d...levard-office-new-york-skyline-skyscraper.jpg
_Credit: BIG_

-----

*Full article with more renderings*

-----


----------



## Hudson11

@pennywise_nyc on instagram


----------



## germantower

This tower will be up in no time.


----------



## Hudson11

@mchlanglo793 on instagram


----------



## SMCYB

LeCom said:


> https://ds4.cityrealty.com/img/60d2...rk-skyline-skyscraper-construction-update.jpg
> _Credit: Vitali Ogorodnikov_



Mmm... ice cooffee.


----------



## chjbolton

droneriot said:


> I'm not sure what your expectations were if you are disappointed. Did you figure they'd decide to ditch the renders and build a bunch of Singer/Chrysler/Woolworth Building type towers instead? Right now we're being delivered exactly what was promised.


No need for the snarky comments dude.
It's just a LOT of freaking BLUUUUUUUE! The variety of shapes and designs isn't too bad, but this homogenous mass of blue windows as far as the eye can see... I don't know. Not a fan. Hell, even LA's skyline as more diversity of color! And it's not a great skyline...

Maybe a different tint here, perhaps more colorful night lighting there...
Is that so unreasonable?


----------



## McSky

chjbolton said:


> No need for the snarky comments dude.
> It's just a LOT of freaking BLUUUUUUUE! The variety of shapes and designs isn't too bad, but this homogenous mass of blue windows as far as the eye can see... I don't know. Not a fan. Hell, even LA's skyline as more diversity of color! And it's not a great skyline...
> 
> Maybe a different tint here, perhaps more colorful night lighting there...
> Is that so unreasonable?


Newsflash: the sky is generally blue.


----------



## Hudson11

looks like this grew another floor, to an appropriate 66 floors. 

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/J...id=2&passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=01









@sree__30 on instagram


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/BznVNZxCBlQ/


----------



## casuario

Slowly but surely beginning to take shape! :cheers:


----------



## germantower

I am curious how the park will look like in a few years when the trees have grown. Also, those narrow streets will be congested like crazy once everything is said and done here.


----------



## Hudson11

@andrewkennny on instagram


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ OT but man, if it's complete that is one butt ugly building next to One Manhattan West. Is that the finished product??


----------



## Hudson11

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ OT but man, if it's complete that is one butt ugly building next to One Manhattan West. Is that the finished product??



Yes, but that's just the core. The other side is very pleasant, designed by KPF.


----------



## streetscapeer

@kwnrc85














Thomas_Koloski on yimby


----------



## Hudson11

@corrigan0910 on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

@composertim on instagram


----------



## streetscapeer

@jaysontanphoto


----------



## Troopchina

Hudson11 said:


> @composertim on instagram


What is that in the top left corner rising next to the Javits?


----------



## yankeesfan1000

Troopchina said:


> What is that in the top left corner rising next to the Javits?


Javits Center expansion


----------



## citysquared

All very impressive, but wonder if a trend will ever start for masonry or masonry-like clad buildings or at least more detailed treatment buildings' outer skin. Too much glass can have a deadening effect, sculptural forms enhance skylines but from the street the eye craves more.


----------



## Hudson11

@_sebgnd on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

@nikolasnc on instagram


----------



## Hudson11

Hudson Yards Construction by Brule Laker, on Flickr


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B1m68vFAAvI/


----------



## Slow Burn

A few pics taken at the weekend while in New York

DSC03608 by ofhklnve60, on Flickr

DSC03582 by ofhklnve60, on Flickr


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2PfyT0n88X/​


----------



## streetscapeer

@jeffrcasey


----------



## streetscapeer

Skyscrapergramer on yimby


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B27p5bfhbPj/


----------



## streetscapeer

JC_Heights on yimby


----------



## streetscapeer

JC_Heights on yimby


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://www.instagram.com/p/B3pRCWFH2Du/​


----------



## Hudson11

by me.


----------



## streetscapeer

Thomas_Koloski on yimby modified YIMHudson's photo










Thomas_Koloski on yimby


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/48961539768/in/feed


----------



## shakeltown

nice view


----------



## streetscapeer

Skyscrapergramer on yimby


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B4NJlEHH_TU/


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://www.instagram.com/p/B4Poo_PnvBv/​














> SOURCE: https://www.instagram.com/p/B4Se7eUnfyN/​


----------



## streetscapeer

TECTONIC










@styledby.s


----------



## streetscapeer

JC_Heights onyimby


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B4tQNBpH4Q-/


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B4v0kFEltwd/












https://www.instagram.com/p/B4s2TxZhvcg/


----------



## streetscapeer

@bennycchan


https://www.instagram.com/p/B5EFmAvpWvR/


----------



## streetscapeer

Skyscrapergamer on yimby









@mikemclaughlinphoto









@atlasacon









@nataanna23









@louberg701


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5Kt_8kF4_T/


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://www.instagram.com/p/B5n65Jqnccj/​


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-66-hudson-blvd-the-spiral-1-040-ft-66-floors/196/497​


----------



## TheUrbanist

Vertical_Gotham said:


>


Is this rendering still valid or has the design changed?


----------



## MarshallKnight

TheUrbanist said:


> Is this rendering still valid or has the design changed?



Oh no. Buddy. You are in for some disappointment...


----------



## CCs77

MarshallKnight said:


> Oh no. Buddy. You are in for some disappointment...





TheUrbanist said:


> Is this rendering still valid or has the design changed?


hehehe... If it is worth something, that rendering was never really valid.


----------



## TheUrbanist

MarshallKnight said:


> Oh no. Buddy. You are in for some disappointment...


Could you maybe post the new rendering?


----------



## MarshallKnight

TheUrbanist said:


> Could you maybe post the new rendering?


Sure. These are from the official building page:


----------



## streetscapeer

https://twitter.com/ShawnHeilbron


----------



## Modestas Gailius

CCs77 said:


> hehehe... If it is worth something, that rendering was never really valid.


Was a typical business move to hype up the whole Hudson Yards project


----------



## streetscapeer

KayOne73














davidben33


----------



## DiogoBaptista

>





> SOURCE: https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/mark...ransforming-manhattan039s-far-west-side/29061​


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B6aqI1tAHhB/


----------



## Eric Offereins

The Hudson Yards look amazing at night.


----------



## JohnDee

Ingles sold his soul for this building. This corporate monster sucks your soul.


----------



## Architecture lover

This is so clumsy. 
So is the 2 WTC.

Then I see his new Williamsburg projects and question myself, how did such a great project came from the same studio that designed these two...things, above.


----------



## xing lin

The Spiral deserves all the hate it gets though. Lazy and awkward building IMO


----------



## Architecture lover

The Hudson Yards have attracted such negative comments from the architectural intelligentsia of the west, largely due to the fact of how unimaginative the project ended. Just find the articles all over every architectural magazine with credibility out there (Dezeen, ArchDaily, as the main two).

At first I wondered why so much criticism because initially I really liked the project. But when I see the full picture, it is just so average. That's what it is, one dull, boring project. This plot still has those massive Air Rights approved, even though the only thing that's gonna be constructed on it, is one boring, halfway pixeled box tower. Just yuck.

Whoever gave them those rights, knew that this was "the place" to built the first megatall in the US. 
The project's developers still try to sell this place as the ultimate centerpiece of modern cutting age architecture in New York, and that's what makes it even more ridiculous. Going as further as announcing the Heatherwick sculpture as the new Eiffel Tower. (Yes, they actually said that). Triggering even more laughing from the arch fellas.


----------



## streetscapeer

https://www.instagram.com/p/B9h4A3JH3-e/


----------



## Manhattan Man

Sunday, March 15th, 2020. 


The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr


The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr


----------



## DiogoBaptista

> SOURCE: https://www.instagram.com/p/B9zOs_QHQIc/​


----------



## streetscapeer

__
http://instagr.am/p/B-YDA3XFe_z/


----------



## streetscapeer

Source


----------



## Леонид

It is amazing that all of this towers are on top of train lines and all of this is elevated! incredible cant wait to see it on my own.


----------



## Modestas Gailius

Леонид said:


> It is amazing that all of this towers are on top of train lines and all of this is elevated! incredible cant wait to see it on my own.


incredible engineering


----------



## DeaconG

streetscapeer said:


> Source


Hope homeboy knows he's about to lose his view of 35 Hudson Yards...


----------



## Hudson11

U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Cory W. Bush


----------



## kanye

by tectonicphoto


----------



## aquamaroon

Hudson11 said:


> U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Cory W. Bush



Sorry for going off topic but just a quick aside, this photo really shows what a comparative waste of prime real estate the Javits Center is. Nothing wrong with the design, but does New York's convention center REALLY need to be in Manhattan, and Midtown on the water no less?


----------



## Twopsy

aquamaroon said:


> Sorry for going off topic but just a quick aside, this photo really shows what a comparative waste of prime real estate the Javits Center is. Nothing wrong with the design, but does New York's convention center REALLY need to be in Manhattan, and Midtown on the water no less?


There are many examples of "wasted" space in Manhattan, but if you can build skyscrapers over train tracks, they might also build skyscrapers over a convention centre one day. I like that you can walk to the Javits Center from Midtown. The same is true for Madison Square Garden. I would even love to see some sport venues in Manhattan. It could become a walkable city without the need to ever use a car or public transport. It's sad that the Football stadium of New York City is not even in the same state. 

I also wish there will be a large shopping mall in Manhattan again one day. Shopping belongs to the city centre and not next to the highway. Cities like Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore, Dubai and Kuala Lumpur have very large shopping malls right in the city centre. Unfortunately land in Manhattan became so expensive that shopping malls or sport stadiums do not generate enough money to pay for that land. When I was in New York in 1997, there was the "Manhattan Mall" on nine levels. When I came back ten years later, five of the nine levels were converted into office space. Also some hotels were converted into luxury apartments. Those high property prices in New York hurt the city more and more. Javits Center and Madison Square Garden are two buildings from the "old times" when land was still somehat cheap. I hope those buildings will stay.


----------



## Riley1066

aquamaroon said:


> Sorry for going off topic but just a quick aside, this photo really shows what a comparative waste of prime real estate the Javits Center is. Nothing wrong with the design, but does New York's convention center REALLY need to be in Manhattan, and Midtown on the water no less?


Its not wasted space at all IMHO. When I visit NYC I always arrive at Penn Station and I don't want to have to travel a long distance to get to the type of events (NYC Comic Con, the NY Auto Show etc) that Javits Center hosts ... its the perfect location for a major convention center. Right in Midtown. Its also turned out to be a perfect location for a contingency hospital for this COVID-19 outbreak. I don't want to have to go all the way out to Queens for its replacement.

There's PLENTY of office space and residential towers going up around it.


----------



## Troopchina

Exactly. Much better to have a convention center located in Manhattan than somewhere on the outskirts.


----------



## WillBuild




----------



## Io-Diegetic

I can’t find myself to get that excited for this building. It’s design is ok could be better. But I wish it was a little taller. Don’t get me wrong supertall is well supertall but I just don’t have as much as an interest for the shorter supertalls. I almost never look at the below supertall buildings because I ain’t that excited about them.


----------



## KillerZavatar

^^ not every building needs to be exciting anyways. It is great to have some filler buildings that provide some density to the area.


----------



## sebass123

There is a rather big shopping mall in hudson yards with high end retail stores. Manhattan doesn't need a lot of shopping malls it is better for a city to be walkable with lots of stores on the streets rather than an enclosed space.


----------



## phoenixboi08

sebass123 said:


> There is a rather big shopping mall in hudson yards with high end retail stores. Manhattan doesn't need a lot of shopping malls it is better for a city to be walkable with lots of stores on the streets rather than an enclosed space.


This feels to me like a facile critique. 
Considering the success of other such developments (eg. the Time Warner complex @ Columbus Cir.), I'd say cities can accommodate both.
Even in the much lofted cities people wax poetic about, such retail developments exist...

I'd say the biggest faux pas of it - and adjoining - development(s) is not opening towards the center of the block to continue the extant paseo that seems pretty much set to emerge between PSNY-Empire Station Complex, Manhattan West complex, and Hudson Yards.

With some minor conceptual rethinking, we could have gotten a giant, pedestrian gallery from Penn Station (or from Herald Sq., if 32nd St. was pedestrianized as well) to the High Line. 

Given the slow walking towards pedestrianizing 33rd St. adjoining the PSNY-Empire Station, and what I believe is the eventuality of doing the same along 7th and/or 8th Aves. near these facilities, it would have been really nice; Basically, it could have been a simple extension of the High Line/32nd St., as far as the public was concerned, that passed through the middle of these blocks to stitch them together.

That such an opportunity was missed - or, more realistically, not recognized - is what is best termed a _planning failure_.


----------



## WillBuild

5 MW will have to be demolished for that first, but that is bound to happen eventually.

We could have gotten our own spanish steps up to the HY podium. And a terrific see through from midtown to the Vessel.

That blank wall and bland mall is a giant missed opportunity, indeed. And I expect the mall will face a tough first few years. The anchor, Neiman Marcus, just filed for bankruptcy.

With that, the giant mall in the new WTC --which has never been full--, TWC, the new department store at the base of CPT, and that giant thing opening in the meadowlands, there is glut of malls in and around NYC.

I, too, believe that what makes NYC special is the walkable public space. Soho is essentially an open air mall. We have no need for traditional malls. The model is failing elsewhere in the country and makes even less sense in this city. The only saving grace is that by attracting all large brands, they vacate street street space for other, more varied, retail.


----------



## redcode

Old to New by Kevin Murray on 500px


----------



## streetscapeer

by me










*@nyc_pictures*


----------



## A Chicagoan

streetscapeer said:


> by me


Finally!


----------



## streetscapeer

Credit: the dronalist









*@chihoboken*


----------



## Chro_matic

The cladding seems to be going on fast, exciting! It's really easy now to see how the completed building is going to look.


----------



## redcode

Untitled by Jee Han on 500px


----------



## hkskyline

NYC by Darshan K, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Aug 23


Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards (20200823-DSC03412) by Michael Lee, trên Flickr


----------



## redcode

Aug 30, featuring 50 Hudson Yards 









Midtown Manhattan by jonathan Zhong on 500px


----------



## streetscapeer

The moon rises behind the Empire State Building, Hudson Yards, and...


----------



## A Chicagoan

streetscapeer said:


> The moon rises behind the Empire State Building, Hudson Yards, and...


----------



## rgarrison

From my 3d model of New York City:


----------



## Manhattan Man

Monday August 31st, 2020.


The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards Update by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr


The Spiral Update by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Aug 31









New York, New York. by jonathan Zhong on 500px


----------



## Martijn1

Looking at all those pictures it is almost like if there is the need to have a real tall iconic tower to complete this area. A tower transcending every tower in NYC. Something around 2000ft...


----------



## hkskyline

Hudson Yards looks quite nice with the varying heights. Might not need a super tower to put top things off. From the Weekhawken angle, it doesn't overshadow the ESB too much although they look big since it's closer to the Hudson.


----------



## perheps

Both of them look like reaching 656 feet or 200 metre? It’s very quickly getting into sky after all and last year was ground floor


----------



## redcode

Sep 2









Corn Moon Moon Rises in New York City


----------



## streetscapeer

@bjarkeingels


----------



## baronson

From 9.5.20:


----------



## redcode

New York City Skyline by Carla Npsg, trên Flickr


----------



## streetscapeer

__
http://instagr.am/p/CMPJLtSLttb/


----------



## Manitopiaaa

^^ 6 supertalls in that shot. I love that gap which still makes the ESB visible.


----------



## Eric Offereins

Awesome sight, such a dense cluster.


----------



## redcode

Mar 13









NYC. Manhattan. Ides of March (almost...). Blue hour by Andrei Shpak on 500px


----------



## streetscapeer

Credit: The Dronalist


----------



## PsyLock

Manitopiaaa said:


> ^^ 6 supertalls in that shot. I love that gap which still makes the ESB visible.


2MW will eventually block that view of ESB from Hudson.


----------



## hkskyline

Here is a big picture article on the entire Hudson Yards development, focusing on the negative aspects of the retail part of the redevelopment but there are some interesting overall points :

*Manhattan’s Massive Hudson Yards Reaches Its 2nd Birthday*








Manhattan’s Massive Hudson Yards Reaches Its 2nd Birthday


It’s been exactly two years since Hudson Yards held its grand opening gala. After a year that included a lengthy Covid closure, the loss of its Neiman Marcus anchor, and other successes and challenges, the mega-complex is eager to welcome back workers, shoppers, and visitors.




www.forbes.com





I didn't feel it having a suburban feel though and a dedicated subway extension shows good planning before people moved in rather than after the fact.


----------



## redcode

Mar 14

2021Mar14 (3) by ShellyS, trên Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

3/14

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, MARCH 14TH, 2021. by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, MARCH 14TH, 2021. by NYMAN2010, on Flickr


----------



## Manhattan Man

March 15th, 2021

The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards Update by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr

The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards Update by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr

Left: March 15th, 2021 
Right: March 15th, 2020

The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards Construction by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr

The Spiral and 50 Hudson Yards Construction by Xzeyvion Aryee, on Flickr


----------



## JohnDee

Really tall towers, but devoid of much character. Not much of a spiral really either. Nice marketing gimmick though. Marketing 101 right here. 

Bjarke Ingles disappoints me.


----------



## A Chicagoan

I was trying a new route to drive down to Manhattan, but took a wrong exit and ended up here. Deep in the heart of NJ's Meadowlands. Filled with lots of AM radio towers and a swampy smell that's quite pungent. The view at sunset is beautiful. March 2021 by Andy Blair, on Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

*March 20:*








NYC. Hudson Yards. Evening by Andrei Shpak on 500px.com


----------



## gravesVpelli

Admittedly the name is misleading but the final product has many positives such as the cutout edging, and the shimmering skin (like so many new builds on Manhattan) is eye-wateringly good.


----------



## Objective

redcode said:


> Mar 13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYC. Manhattan. Ides of March (almost...). Blue hour by Andrei Shpak on 500px


Can anyone tell me the name and/or a thread about that skyscraper that looks as if it's close to Empire State Building in the back? Thanks.


----------



## ben77

Its a funny building looks great from certain angles taken by a professional photographer (Dezeen images were brilliant). But 90% of the time it just looks like a big old lump and the cut aways are hardly noticable. Prefer the Foster's tower next door..


----------



## A Chicagoan

Objective said:


> Can anyone tell me the name and/or a thread about that skyscraper that looks as if it's close to Empire State Building in the back? Thanks.


Which one? There are multiple skyscrapers near ESB in that picture.


----------



## Objective

A Chicagoan said:


> Which one? There are multiple skyscrapers near ESB in that picture.


Left side from the ESB, that looks topped and the cladding is halfway through.It's not right next to ESB but looks that way from an angle of the pic.


----------



## A Chicagoan

Objective said:


> Left side from the ESB, that looks topped and the cladding is halfway through.It's not right next to ESB but looks that way from an angle of the pic.


I think it's this building:








NEW YORK | Lyra NYC | 180m | 590ft | 52 fl | T/O


Another tower for the Hudson Yards district. The second phase of this project will be 555 West 38th, a 1.2m sf office tower. This is the first phase, a splitting residential tower designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli. Rockrose Moves Ahead on Soaring Hudson Yards Tower Designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli...




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## A Chicagoan

I woke up at 2 in the morning and decided to take a picture 








The previous evening


----------



## redcode

Jun 07

Hudson Yards by Brian Logan, trên Flickr

Gloom by John Dryzga, trên Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

__
https://flic.kr/p/2m575u9


----------



## Zaz965

@A Chicagoan, is there a thread about that short building under construction in the middle?


----------



## A Chicagoan

Zaz965 said:


> @A Chicagoan, is there a thread about that short building under construction in the middle?


I think it's two buildings: 450 11th Avenue on the left and The Set on the right.


----------



## hkskyline

6/6

Hudson Yards, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickro A, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Jun 17

r_210617_256_beat0051_a by Mitch Waxman, trên Flickr

r_210617_518_beat0051_a by Mitch Waxman, trên Flickr

r_210617_718_beat0051_a by Mitch Waxman, trên Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

One more daytime shot from Mitch's set :

r_210617_070_beat0051_a by Mitch Waxman, on Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

Transitions by Arijit Sarkar on 500px.com


----------



## hkskyline

* Manhattan office vacancies reach new heights, a growing trend as construction continues *
Crain’s New York Business _Excerpt_ 
June 1, 2021

The amount of empty office space in Manhattan is continuing to grow, reaching a record 17.1% in May, according to a report from Colliers International. The trend could keep rents from going back to prepandemic levels if demand doesn't get a boost.

...

But the availability of space that will continue to bog down the market isn't only a sign of firms ditching the city or relocating. It's also thanks to new construction coming on the market, Wallach said.

"There's still millions of square feet of new construction in the pipeline," he said, "and that's more space that comes into our availability."

Brookfield Properties is marketing about 1.5 million square feet at its Hudson Yards development 2 Manhattan West. Then there's Tishman Speyer's new development in the neighborhood, the Spiral, which has more than 1 million square feet available.

More : Manhattan office vacancies reach new heights, a growing trend as construction continues


----------



## hkskyline

6/22

Manhattan from The Bronx by Edgar Omar, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

NYC Sunrise by Matt Cascone on 500px


----------



## Eric Offereins

The spiral is a nice touch. It breaks up the large surface quite well.


----------



## redcode

Jun 27

New York City Light-show by James Falletti, trên Flickr


----------



## redcode

Jun 28









On deck by Keith Adamik on 500px


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410032991406022656


----------



## JohnDee

poor 50 hy, can hardly see it...good thing though, it's a bore. The spiral has some panache on the skyline at least.


----------



## Zaz965

A Chicagoan said:


> I woke up at 2 in the morning and decided to take a picture


2:00am?


----------



## redcode

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408770179975233538


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410252263235407881


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410069654232502277


----------



## streetscapeer

*@guygabrielphotography*


----------



## JohnDee

this tower will be obscured from the river by the future tower opposite.. Sad as this tower actually looks decent.


----------



## Hudson11

That tower has failed to secure an anchor tenant and has a reported price tag of 2.6 billion. It's not rising any time soon with so much uncertainty in the office market.


----------



## perheps

Hudson11 said:


> That tower has failed to secure an anchor tenant and has a reported price tag of 2.6 billion. It's not rising any time soon with so much uncertainty in the office market.


It’s not cancelled or anything stop I think they’re have stop work because too many offer already settled for but lucky enough they’re can buildings resuming in 2022 probably a year from now I think also not failure… it’s come from coronavirus recession put this limbo for while they’re decided move on for research new anchor tenants plan.

I assume that they’re may be new plan for 50 floors probably 853 feet (260 metres) tall I think.

It’s good news no harmful to this one.


----------



## the man from k-town

what an impressive cluster!



hkskyline said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410252263235407881


----------



## Eric Offereins

streetscapeer said:


> View attachment 1718086
> 
> *@guygabrielphotography*


I love the reflection at dusk. That is when all that glass really has an added value.


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

streetscapeer said:


> View attachment 1718086
> 
> *@guygabrielphotography*


THE CLADDING HAS REACHED THE TOP!!!!!


----------



## redcode

Jul 4









Source









by @VelesHomais


----------



## Zaz965

the cladding has reached the top


----------



## hkskyline

*The Spiral’s Glass Façade Reaches Roof Parapet At 66 Hudson Boulevard In Hudson Yards, Manhattan*


> The Spiral‘s glass curtain wall is closing in on the final floors of the 66-story, 1,041-foot-tall commercial supertall at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards. Designed by Bjarke Ingels Group and developed by Tishman Speyer, the property occupies a full block between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues and 34th and 35th Streets, and is poised to provide a massive 2.85 million square feet of office space to Midtown, Manhattan. Turner Construction Company is serving as the construction manager, Banker Steel is in charge of manufacturing the steel, and Permasteelisa is the contractor for the reflective enclosure. The Spiral is expected to cost around $3.7 billion.
> 
> Recent photos showcase the progress since our last update in late March, when the façade only enclosed about two-thirds of the superstructure.











The Spiral's Glass Façade Reaches Roof Parapet at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Glass installation is nearing completion on The Spiral, a 1,041-foot supertall from Bjarke Ingels and Tishman Speyer at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards.



newyorkyimby.com


----------



## hkskyline

7/5

IMG_0363 by Brecht Bug, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

r_210705_070_077_beat0055_a by Mitch Waxman, trên Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

*Sustainable Skyscraper Spiral Takes Form in Hudson Yards*


> Located at the end of the High Line in Manhattan, the Spiral is one of New York City’s newest sustainable skyscrapers with an incredible design. Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) designed the human-centric structure set to redefine the corporate office environment.
> 
> The design features a dramatic series of cascading terraces that reach every tower floor—bringing light, fresh air, and access to outdoor space to building occupants. This measure will improve indoor air quality and include all of the benefits of biophilic design.
> 
> Set to open in 2022, the design of this 1,005-square-foot building includes balconies that open into double-height atriums, providing customizable work areas.
> 
> Connected floors encourage building occupants to ditch the elevator and walk alongside nature during their day. This sustainable design is at the forefront of the new focus on eco-friendly architecture.











Sustainable Skyscraper Spiral Takes Form in Hudson Yards - gb&d


Sustainable skyscraper Spiral takes form with incredible views, open-air terraces, and a one-of-a-kind design in the heart of New York City.




gbdmagazine.com


----------



## hkskyline

7/4

Hudson Yards by Rich L. Wang, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

*The Spiral’s Glass Façade Reaches Roof Parapet At 66 Hudson Boulevard In Hudson Yards, Manhattan*





























































































































The Spiral's Glass Façade Reaches Roof Parapet at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Glass installation is nearing completion on The Spiral, a 1,041-foot supertall from Bjarke Ingels and Tishman Speyer at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards.



www.newyorkyimby.com


----------



## redcode

East River fireworks as seen from the Hudson by Gust, trên Flickr

IMG_2172 by Harald Wilhelm, trên Flickr

IMG_2169 by Harald Wilhelm, trên Flickr


----------



## redcode

__
http://instagr.am/p/CRJqR8CDjvh/


----------



## redcode

west NY by BOBBY KITSOS on 500px


----------



## Hudson11

IMG_2172 by Harald Wilhelm, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Aug 5









D2N03928-Pano-Exposure copy by D'Andre Newman on 500px


----------



## Zaz965

redcode said:


> it's already part of Midtown Manhattan though, isn't it?


yes, but it looks separated from midtown. I think because there are many small buildings between hudson yards and midtown


----------



## hkskyline




----------



## hkskyline

8/7

West Side Yard, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr

West Side Yard, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424183666377383939


----------



## redcode

Aug 8









GaryHershorn


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424566887573344263


----------



## DeaconG

I'd love to see how this looks once they get the foliage placed on the outside.


----------



## UrbanImpact

Blue Flame said:


> Is anything planned to fill that gap? I cant recall seeing anything planned for that area.


There’s a whole new phase coming in front of these buildings!


----------



## redcode

Aug 9

34th Street by MadMartigen, trên Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

Reflecting the Holy Light


----------



## redcode

Starshapedgummy


----------



## redcode

Aug 15

NYC Skyline from New Jersey by WARREN FIELDS, trên Flickr


----------



## Zaz965

my dream: a thick toranomon building in hudson yards


----------



## hkskyline

8/15

Observing Hudson River from NJ side by WARREN FIELDS, on Flickr

Observing Hudson River from NJ side by WARREN FIELDS, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

mchlanglo793









vixiwixi


----------



## redcode

Aug 19









chihoboken









GaryHershorn

Moody Sunset on Manhattan by Antonio Grande, trên Flickr


----------



## redcode

Aug 21









GaryHershorn









rcm.photography


----------



## Zaz965

they look thick


----------



## redcode

Zaz965 said:


> they look thick


I get it  😂


----------



## hkskyline

*Office Building Terraces Bloom During COVID*
August 31, 2021
Commercial Observer _Excerpt_

It started as a nice amenity to have and, as time has marched on, it has become a must-have.

These days, you almost can’t build an office building without including some outdoor space for people to relax on, to work on, or from which to just see the world differently. And, as COVID increasingly causes people to question why spend so much time in the car or on the train when you can be just as productive on your laptop at your kitchen table, with the delta variant out there and the odds of getting sick dwindling the more time you spend outdoors, outdoor terraces make more sense than ever.

“We’ve been involved in office space and building design, and the evolution of office buildings, for 40 years,” said Dan Kaplan, a senior partner at the architecture firm FXCollaborative and designer of One Willoughby Square, a new office tower in Downtown Brooklyn. “And, over the last 10 to 12 years, the demand for exterior space in office buildings has grown, and, with the pandemic, it has really exploded.”

...

Perhaps the most emblematic of the movement toward terraces in offices is The Spiral, rising now in Hudson Yards on Manhattan’s Far West Side. Designed by Bjarke Ingels, arguably the world’s hottest starchitect, the Tishman Speyer project features a spiral of outdoor decks as the skyscraper rises to its 1,005-foot height. 

Each of its 65 stories will have its own terrace, which Bjarke Ingels Group partner Kai-Uwe Bergmann called the logical extension of the High Line — the abandoned freight trestle turned urban park that snakes through the lower West Side before terminating around the train yards that give The Spiral’s neighborhood its name.

More : Office Building Terraces Bloom During the COVID Pandemic


----------



## hkskyline

9/12

Untitled by Vinny Schiano, on Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

A New York City Panorama by Eric M., on Flickr


----------



## Twopsy

Imagine they would illuminate the balconies in the evening hours. That would look amazing.


----------



## redcode

kenpix_


----------



## Vilatic

*Not exactly an update... but google earth updated NYC again, it's still outdated though.*


----------



## Chro_matic

Vilatic said:


> *Not exactly an update... but google earth updated NYC again, it's still outdated though.*


Woohoo! Love it when there's new 3D modelling to explore.


----------



## redcode

berchele2020









customnyctours


----------



## hkskyline

9/19

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2021. by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2021. by NYMAN2010, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Sep 19









GaryHershorn

NYC skyline by Bethany Paxson, on Flickr









EmericTimelapse


----------



## streetscapeer

source


----------



## redcode

teejay.clicks









harlanerskine









eric.norcross


----------



## A Chicagoan

Skyline at Sunset, from Hudson by Nitzan, on Flickr


Skyline at Sunset, from Hudson by Nitzan, on Flickr


Skyline at Sunset, from Hudson by Nitzan, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

A more macro view of Hudson Yards as a development and whether the $25 billion development is good :


----------



## hkskyline

9/23









Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## redcode

meronlangsner









bodhi_bill

New York City 2021 by Wojtek Felendzer, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

9/29










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## redcode

berchele2020









nydiary202022


----------



## cubsfan

Its crazy to think that New York is essentially building a Philadelphia on some decking over railroad tracks just cause it can. Only in NY.


----------



## redcode

I wonder when the western rail yard will get developed. It should double the size of the cluster.


----------



## redcode

davidjimenezarq


----------



## redcode

dominika.peeka

Skyline by Ben Cappellacci, on Flickr


----------



## Hudson11

here's how the terraces will look (at least before 3 Hudson Boulevard blocks them)


----------



## Ecopolisia

Troopchina said:


> Nothing spirally about this spiral


Well, at least the setbacks of balconies are.They're all lined up together.All well-connected like zig-zagged backed snake wrapping around the building (wel,,again that's what it looks like to me,I think) in other words(lol).I'm just saying..😉🙃✌


----------



## redcode

yossiflerphoto









hypermusicalmusic


----------



## Zaz965

@Hudson11, @A Chicagoan, @redcode, won't this plot in front of Hudson yards be occupied by new developments?


----------



## Hudson11

that will probably be one of the last plots to be developed. No plans have been made public yet.


----------



## Kyll.Ing.

I have a question in that regard: What about the plots directly south of the rail yards? Here?








Google Maps


Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




www.google.com




These quite large blocks appear to mostly be used for open-air parking, some garages, and a two-storey building facing 11th avenue. This appears to me to be quite unproductive use of _really_ premium land. It's practically waterfront property on Manhattan, right next to the massive Hudson Yards development, and they're using the site to park cars under the open sky? 

There seems to be one high-rise going up on the northernmost of these plots, but are there plans to develop the rest of that block and the one south of it?


----------



## Hudson11

Eventually I'm sure. But unless I'm mistaken, those lots are just outside of the zoning district, so they won't spawn massive towers. That area is being considered a transition zone between the lowrise section of Chelsea and the behemoth Hudson Yards supertalls. So something moderately sized could rise in these lots, but probably not 200m skyscrapers.


----------



## hkskyline

10/5

r_211005_090_beat0076_a by Mitch Waxman, on Flickr


----------



## UrbanImpact

Kyll.Ing. said:


> I have a question in that regard: What about the plots directly south of the rail yards? Here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Maps
> 
> 
> Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These quite large blocks appear to mostly be used for open-air parking, some garages, and a two-storey building facing 11th avenue. This appears to me to be quite unproductive use of _really_ premium land. It's practically waterfront property on Manhattan, right next to the massive Hudson Yards development, and they're using the site to park cars under the open sky?
> 
> There seems to be one high-rise going up on the northernmost of these plots, but are there plans to develop the rest of that block and the one south of it?


The south lot is owned by NYCs utility Con Edison


----------



## redcode

NY NY 2021 _SNY6793 by Brent Billman, sur Flickr









a.p.s._photography









seeyacyan









91grandwagoneer


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447029085104922624


----------



## streetscapeer

The sun rises on the Empire State Building, the Spiral and Hudson...


----------



## redcode

matt.marc.h

05.ArrivalWalk.NYC.4October2021 by Elvert Barnes, sur Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

* Fitch Upgrades $2.1B Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp. Revs to 'A+'; Outlook Stable *
_Excerpt_

Fitch Ratings - New York - 08 Oct 2021: Fitch Ratings has assigned an 'A+' rating to approximately $452,000,000 Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp. NY (HYIC) Hudson Yards revenue bonds fiscal 2022 series A (green bonds). Fitch has also upgraded its rating on $2.1 billion in outstanding Hudson Yards revenue bonds, which will be on parity with the series 2022A bonds, to 'A+' from 'A'.

The Rating Outlook is Stable.

...

A recent demand and development report provided by C&W studied 17 buildings anticipated to generate the majority of pledged revenues, including four completed and nearly fully leased office towers with a combined approximately 8 msf of office space (10, 30 and 55 Hudson Yards and One Manhattan West). The C&W report indicates these buildings command higher rents than the surrounding area and the Manhattan market as a whole, with limited sublease space available. A retail building, 20 Hudson Yards, is also complete but its major retail tenant, Neiman Marcus has already closed, leaving more than 40% of the 0.7 msf vacant.

Three additional office towers with combined space of approximately 8 msf are under construction and expected to open late 2022 (50 Hudson Yards, 66 Hudson Boulevard or "The Spiral" and Two Manhattan West). Committed office tenants include law firms, financial services firms, technology and media companies, among others, but significant space remains unleased.

More : https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...ture-corp-revs-to-a-outlook-stable-08-10-2021


----------



## Hudson11

best angle of the tower


P3_2_McMillan by Lea McMillan, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

mrnyc









cristinae93


----------



## hkskyline

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447983432252887041


----------



## redcode

berchele2020


----------



## droneriot

NanoRay said:


> I do know that the tallest tower in the image is around 1,755’. So One WTC is having a near-rival.


I'm not one of those "roof height" fanatics that exist around here, but there's something really awkward about saying a 1,755' building that's a building all the way to the top is shorter than 1WTC. I know it's technically correct, just feels odd.


----------



## redcode

Nov 3

Autumn Glow by Russell Sullivan, sur Flickr










wtz

Nov 7

A Day In New York 11th November 2021 by The All-Nite Images, sur Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

Source : Twitter @ relnox


----------



## hkskyline

__
http://instagr.am/p/CV_6KlRsDFP/


----------



## hkskyline

__
http://instagr.am/p/CV_peELA7V9/


----------



## hkskyline

11/6

Hell&#x27;s Kitchen, indeed by cohodas208c, on Flickr

The Spiral (under construction) by cohodas208c, on Flickr

Hudson Yards Development by cohodas208c, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Nov 7









A1110 by Dariusz Chelstowski on 500px

 

 
Source


----------



## hkskyline

__
http://instagr.am/p/CWEdP-fvDH0/


----------



## exodius

From late October


----------



## A Chicagoan

*November 13:*

Skyscrapers, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

11/15










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## Spyrith

exodius said:


> From late October


What's it like walking around that area at ground level? Also, are they only office buildings or mixed use?


----------



## UrbanImpact

Spyrith said:


> What's it like walking around that area at ground level? Also, are they only office buildings or mixed use?


This is only half the project. Phase 2 will be in front of these buildings and be more residential oriented. First they need to deck over the train tracks. Here is what I'm talking about on a map:








West Side Yard · 300 12th Ave, New York, NY 10001


★★★★☆ · Train yard




goo.gl





Basically, the new neighborhood is far from finished.


----------



## Hudson11

Spyrith said:


> What's it like walking around that area at ground level? Also, are they only office buildings or mixed use?


It's a man made canyon terminating at the plaza and the sculpture. It is a mix of ultra luxury and offices. Because of covid it hasn't been the liveliest place this past year. That should change as tourists return and occupy the hotels and the office tenants bring back their workers on a more permanent basis.
Critics bashed it as an "island" within and island on Manhattan, but that was just the first phase and they judged it in a vacuum. Now there's Manhattan West, the Spiral, 50 Hudson Yards and numerous other projects along the Boulevard under construction.


----------



## A Chicagoan

Spyrith said:


> What's it like walking around that area at ground level?


Not fun when it's windy... I speak from personal experience! The actual sidewalk quality is definitely better than in the rest of Manhattan.


----------



## fkus

UrbanImpact said:


> This is only half the project. Phase 2 will be in front of these buildings and be more residential oriented. First they need to deck over the train tracks. Here is what I'm talking about on a map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> West Side Yard · 300 12th Ave, New York, NY 10001
> 
> 
> ★★★★☆ · Train yard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goo.gl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, the new neighborhood is far from finished.


Why the phase 2 didn’t start yet?


----------



## noms78

The Dubai marina of NYC 😀


----------



## Ecopolisia

noms78 said:


> The Dubai marina of NYC 😀


But,with way more quality (I don't talk about the facade look here btw.Just to make sure of it to you guys or just you) on their buildings' facades/facade materials ON AVERAGE...Just have to be said,too..lol..🤷‍♂️😅😁🙃😉👌👍🤘


----------



## hkskyline

11/13

2021Nov13 (3) by ShellyS, on Flickr


----------



## MikeVegas

I've never really made this comparison in my head before but Hudson Yards reminds me of that skyscraper area in Moscow. Both built pretty much in the same time frame as well.


----------



## UrbanImpact

fkus said:


> Why the phase 2 didn’t start yet?


Because there are many agencies involved like Amtrak, MTA, Related, etc. Amtrak needed the funds to build a new tunnel box for the Gateway Project (new train tunnels to New Jersey since the current ones are over 100 years old). I believe the funds are in place now and work is will start soon if it hasn't already.
These aren't renderings, just an illustration from the developer:










The Western Yard | Hudson Yards


----------



## hkskyline

11/17

Hudson Yards, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

YIMBY Scopes The Views From The Spiral At 66 Hudson Boulevard In Hudson Yards, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


YIMBY checks the views from Bjarke Ingels Group's and Tishman Speyer's 66-story, 1,041-foot-tall 66 Hudson Boulevard, aka The Spiral, in Hudson Yards.



www.newyorkyimby.com


----------



## redcode

more on the terrace


















Tectonicphoto


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

I know that this is weird, but what’s gonna stop someone from just jumping off the terrace?


----------



## Hudson11

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> I know that this is weird, but what’s gonna stop someone from just jumping off the terrace?


It's a private office building, and the tenants will be by and large elite companies whose employees are making six figure salaries with extensive health benefits. Heck, speaking of the health industry, Pfizer is the anchor tenant.


----------



## A Chicagoan

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> I know that this is weird, but what’s gonna stop someone from just jumping off the terrace?


Surely there will be railings...


----------



## UrbanImpact

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> I know that this is weird, but what’s gonna stop someone from just jumping off the terrace?


What’s going to stop people from hanging themselves or jumping in a river?


----------



## hkskyline

11/21

NYPD, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Nov 26

Hudson Yards, NYC by Steven J. Messina, sur Flickr

West Side Yard, NYC by Steven J. Messina, sur Flickr









GaryHershorn


----------



## Lincolnlover2005

In other news, did you know that JpMorgan Chase is going to have office space at 270 PA?








Manhattan skyscraper snags its own builder as a tenant


The Spiral is adding a large new tenant who won’t have to ask where the elevators and the bathrooms are when it moves in.




nypost.com


----------



## hkskyline

11/30










Source : Twitter @ Bogs4NY


----------



## Hudson11

Lincolnlover2005 said:


> In other news, did you know that JpMorgan Chase is going to have office space at 270 PA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manhattan skyscraper snags its own builder as a tenant
> 
> 
> The Spiral is adding a large new tenant who won’t have to ask where the elevators and the bathrooms are when it moves in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


AECOM Tishman is the contractor for 270 Park


----------



## redcode

Source


----------



## hkskyline

*Turner Construction moving HQ to The Spiral on Manhattan's West Side*








Turner Construction moving HQ to The Spiral on Manhattan's West Side - New York Business Journal


Turner Construction Co. plans to relocate its global headquarters and New York office to The Spiral, the 65-story office tower that's under construction on Manhattan's West Side.




www.bizjournals.com


----------



## hkskyline

12/4

NYPD, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Dec 5









GaryHershorn

 
Source


----------



## hkskyline

12/7










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## redcode

Source


----------



## hkskyline

12/11

NYPD, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

12/16










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## redcode

Dec 17

Views from the 86th Floor Observatory by Matthew Binebrink, sur Flickr

 
Source


----------



## hkskyline

12/13

edge by london road, on Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

*December 16:*

NY Skyline Jpeg_033-01-1 by Dominick Ventura, on Flickr


NY Skyline Jpeg_044-01 by Dominick Ventura, on Flickr


NY Skyline Jpeg_053-01-1 by Dominick Ventura, on Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

12/20










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## redcode

Source


----------



## redcode

*The Spiral Nears Completion At 66 Hudson Boulevard In Hudson Yards, Manhattan*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 










The Spiral Nears Completion at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Façade work is wrapping up on The Spiral, a 66-story supertall from Bjarke Ingels Group and Tishman Speyer at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards.



www.newyorkyimby.com


----------



## A Chicagoan

*December 23:*

NY Skyline seen from Weehawken, NJ 1_3 by Rommel P, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Dec 25

NYC Skyline 12_25_2021 Cloudy-250115 by walkthetalk1, sur Flickr


----------



## hkskyline

12/25










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## Zaz965

massive cbd


----------



## A Chicagoan

*December 26:*

A box for Boxing Day by rcwisneski, on Flickr


----------



## Hudson11

looks like the first hoist is slowly but surely being disassembled.


----------



## Hindustani

hkskyline said:


> 12/25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


No City really ever match the subtleness and the class of NYC.
Its city like no other. There are many "wannabes" but Nothing comes close.
No stupid forced neon LED lighting running up and down skyline vertically.
No excessive "I will force you to stare at me" supertall.
Everything in NYC oozes style, class, grace and most importantly "bygone era"


----------



## aquamaroon

Hindustani said:


> No City really ever match the subtleness and the class of NYC.
> Its city like no other. There are many "wannabes" but Nothing comes close.
> No stupid forced neon LED lighting running up and down skyline vertically.
> No excessive "I will force you to stare at me" supertall.
> Everything in NYC oozes style, class, grace and most importantly "bygone era"


I am a New York fan but I agree, the city is organically epic and tall in a way that a few decades of fast urban growth in dynamic but young metros can't really emulate. A lot of world cities desperately want to look like Coruscant, New York IS Coruscant.


----------



## waccamatt

This building doesn't really speak to me, though the Hudson Yards cluster as a whole, does.


----------



## hkskyline

1/2

NYPD, NYC by Steven J. Messina, on Flickr


----------



## redcode

Jan 2

NYPD, NYC by Steven J. Messina, sur Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

12/30

Urban Nightscape (Twins +1) - Midtown, New York City by Andreas Komodromos, on Flickr


----------



## A Chicagoan

I just noticed that that Chinese restaurant in the above photo is where I ate when I visited New York last April!


----------



## Hindustani

wow. that cluster. looks like a brand new downtown already.



Zaz965 said:


> https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/skybar-twitter-feed.1783748/page-2948


----------



## hkskyline

*The Spiral’s First Construction Elevator Comes Down At 66 Hudson Boulevard In Hudson Yards, Manhattan*


> Exterior work is starting to wrap up on the The Spiral, a 66-story commercial supertall at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards. Designed by Bjarke Ingels Group and developed by Tishman Speyer, the 1,041-foot-tall tower will yield 2.85 million square feet of office space and is expected to cost nearly $3.7 billion. Turner Construction Company is the general contractor, Banker Steel provided the steel work, R&R Scaffolding Ltd. provided the BMU equipment, and Permasteelisa is the contractor for the reflective floor-to-ceiling glass panels on the building, which occupies an entire city block between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues and 34th and 35th Streets.
> 
> At the time of our last update in December, the construction elevator on the southern elevation had just begun to be disassembled. Now the assembly has been completely removed, leaving a gap in the curtain wall that will soon be filled in.






































The Spiral's First Construction Elevator Comes Down at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards, Manhattan - New York YIMBY


Work is wrapping up on The Spiral, a 1,041-foot-tall, 66-story office tower from Bjarke Ingels and Tishman Speyer at 66 Hudson Boulevard in Hudson Yards.



newyorkyimby.com


----------



## hkskyline

3/17

Aerial View, Hudson Yards, Summit Observation Deck, One Vanderbilt, New York City by Lenny Spiro, on Flickr

Aerial View, Midtown Manhattan, Hudson Yards, Summit Observation Deck, One Vanderbilt, New York City by Lenny Spiro, on Flickr


----------



## Zaz965

my thought: a 30 park place alike would a good feature to hudson yards  










https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Hotel_New_York_Downtown


----------



## NanoRay

Zaz965 said:


> my thought: a 30 park place alike would a good feature to hudson yards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Hotel_New_York_Downtown


Idk but I guess so.


----------



## CNTower246810

Zaz965 said:


> my thought: a 30 park place alike would a good feature to hudson yards
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Hotel_New_York_Downtown


RAMSA is purported to be one of the designers for the Hudson Yards phase II towers so it's possible.

As for this project, I'd like to see how it ends up interacting at street level once completed.


----------



## hkskyline

3/28










Source : Twitter @  GaryHershorn


----------



## droneriot

Hey hkskyline, can you visit the Dubai Uptown Tower thread some day? As much as I love Tony_90's amazing close-up shots, the thread could really use some more distance shots by tourists to see the tower in the skyline.


----------



## Bikes




----------



## NanoRay

4/2


----------



## hkskyline

4/9










Source : Twitter @ GaryHershorn


----------



## hkskyline

4/17










Source : Twitter @  GaryHershorn


----------



## A Chicagoan

*April 27:*








Top of the rock by Harald Herwarth on 500px.com


----------



## Zaz965

^^^^^^^
these 2 triangles on the top of hudson yards look like mouths


----------



## sgollis

Into the maw.


----------



## A Chicagoan

*May 1:*








Manhattan Midtown by Ritu Agrawal on 500px.com


----------



## sgollis

I am waiting to see the true profiles of both this and 50 Hudson Yards without their respective construction elevators.


----------



## Hudson11

pretty big deal considering this is the least leased (  ) tower









HSBC to relocate U.S. headquarters to Hudson Yards area


The bank will move from Fifth Avenue to Tishman Speyer’s Spiral in 2024




www.crainsnewyork.com


----------



## UrbanImpact

I'm waiting to see if there really are going to be trees on the steps.


----------



## Hudson11

there was last summer. I'm sure this year we'll see how viable the trees are at higher elevations, if they dont survive it might lead to an interesting leasing situation where companies need to choose between views on the higher floors and comfort on the lower ones. 









Construction Update: The Spiral - 66 Hudson Boulevard — FIELD CONDITION


Facade installation is nearing completion at Tishman Speyer’s The Spiral, a 65-story office building at Hudson Yards in New York. Designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), the tower massing features a stepped, continuous green pathway that spirals upward from ground floor entry to the top of the tower.




fieldcondition.com


----------

