# NYC's 900 footers



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Hi all. Azn_man12345 here. Here is a place to discuss and update any of the New York City skyscrapers taller then 900 feet (274m). Why? Because I've been doing some research, and I've found out that by about 2016, New York City could have up to *SIXTEEN* supertalls!

Compare that to Hong Kong's 6, and Dubai's 20-something, and you will see that New York City is booming! 

So without further ado, I present New York City's tallest, to the best of my knowledge. The buildings are listed by their official height (spires counted, but not antennas).


Rank-Name-Height in meters/Height in feet-Floor Count (if possible)-Status

*a ~ will be used if the height is unknown, but forum speculation is applicable
*any unknown information would be greatly appreciated
*unknown/changing heights and floor counts are given by forum speculation backed by strong evidence
*if heights are same, building with larger floor count is put first

1. One World Trade Center-541/1776-108-Con
2. 440 Park~426/1398-92-Prep
3. Two World Trade Center-411/1350-88-Con
4. Hudson Yards North Tower-394/1292-68-App
5. Empire State Building-381/1250-102-COM
6. 225 West 57th~380/1250-?-Pro
7. 15 Penn Plaza-371/1216-68-App
8. Manhattan West Tower I-371/1216-66-Pro
9. Bank of America Tower-366/1200-54-COM
10. Three World Trade Center-357/1170-80-Con
11. GiraSole-323/1060-60-Pro
12. Tower Verre-320/1050-72-App
13. Chrysler Building-319/1047-77-COM
14. New York Times Tower-319/1047-52-COM
15. Hudson Yards South Tower-310/1017-52-App
16. One 57-305/1005-75-Con
17. Hudson Yards Mixed Use Tower~300/1000-?-Pro
18. Four World Trade Center-298/977-72-Con
19. American International Building-290/952-66-COM
20. Manhattan West Tower II-285/935-60-Pro
21. 40 Wall Street-283/927-70-COM
22. Citigroup Center-279/915-59-COM
23. 30 Park Place-278/912-68-O/H


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

*Links to Forums (Con/Pro buildings)*

One World Trade Center: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=419362
440 Park: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1195971
Two World Trade Center: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=746086
Hudson Yard development: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=549787
225 West 57th: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=82452880
15 Penn Plaza: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=639801
Manhattan West Towers development: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=585812
Three World Trade Center: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=746082
GiraSole: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=541865
Tower Verre: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=547362
One 57: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=776476
Four World Trade Center: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=746080
30 Park Place: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=576845

Once again, this is just for fun. However, if there are any questions or new information, please tell me. I will be providing updates whenever necessary.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Testing Signature as link to this thread


----------



## oilmanjr (Jan 13, 2011)

Right now there are six proposed supertall designs that we know of. I think we will be lucky if half of these even get approved. But still, there are enough approved and under construction that I won't complain.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

From what everyone's saying down on the forums, it is very likely that most of these will be built. It's a fun time for skyscraper fans in New York


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

16 by 2016? Not likely but I share your enthusiasm for the NY supertall boom. We'll see what develops in this turbulent economy of ours.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Well I did say about 


Let's break it down.

The WTC towers will be finished by 2015.
Manhattan West is supposedly to start later this year and finish by 2015.
Wiki has 15 Penn by 2014, but I don't know how possible that is unless it starts very soon
GiraSole and Verre are listed as 2013 completion on wiki, but again, I don't know how possible that is.
The South Tower of Hudson Yards is due to be complete by 2015, but the North Tower by about 2020.
225 W 57 and The Drake aren't listed, but could very well be done by 2016.


So yeah, I was probably wrong when I said 16. But 13-15 supertalls in NY by 2016 is definately possible


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

azn_man12345 said:


> Well I did say about
> 
> 
> Let's break it down.
> ...


No way 2WTC or 3WTC would be done by 2015. Without tennants they're both going to be retail stumps at best. Girasole is on terminal hold and will likely never happen; 15 Penn is demanding Madison Ave. boutique office rents for bulk floorplates in a crappy neighborhood. Something really has to give to send that one up; Hudson Yards may see one tower completed by 2015 but much of that development hinges on the construction of a $1 billion platform over the rail yards and there will be some bickering over that tab. In all, I see 6 new 900 footers gracing the skyline by 2016 with hopefully the rest of WTC negotiated and tennants and financing lined up for another 4 or 5 Midtown and Westside towers. If the economy improves, there's potential for more new tower proposals. And I eagerly await the Con Ed towers going up too! :cheers:


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Dammit! A man can dream! XD

And what are these Con Ed Towers? Are they 900+ feet tall?


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

azn_man12345 said:


> Dammit! A man can dream! XD
> 
> And what are these Con Ed Towers? Are they 900+ feet tall?


They wanted to build very tall towers but preservationists didn't want views to the UN Secretariat Building obstructed so they settled for 3 or 4 600 footers.


----------



## germantower (May 23, 2006)

As if the UN bdlg is architectually worth it to preserve views and its presence.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

desertpunk said:


> No way 2WTC or 3WTC would be done by 2015. Without tennants they're both going to be retail stumps at best. Girasole is on terminal hold and will likely never happen; 15 Penn is demanding Madison Ave. boutique office rents for bulk floorplates in a crappy neighborhood. Something really has to give to send that one up; Hudson Yards may see one tower completed by 2015 but much of that development hinges on the construction of a $1 billion platform over the rail yards and there will be some bickering over that tab. In all, I see 6 new 900 footers gracing the skyline by 2016 with hopefully the rest of WTC negotiated and tennants and financing lined up for another 4 or 5 Midtown and Westside towers. If the economy improves, there's potential for more new tower proposals. And I eagerly await the Con Ed towers going up too! :cheers:


Only the western yards require the massive platform for the Hudson Yards which will be mostly residential. The first office building doesn't require a platform at all, the second taller one does. But Related has said they expect to announce leases for 3 million sf of the roughly 4.5 million sf by years end so the first tower and the platform for the second could very well start by years end. Plus, Related has to start paying rent soon for the site so they'll want to get that started asap.

As for the Girasole, construction/site prep can't start until the city is done with the 7 train stop, as the tower will rise on the same exact lot. That station won't be done until the 4Q of 2012 or 1Q of 2013, so that's why there isn't a whole lot of news on that. 

It's really pretty insane what is going on in NY. Most cities would drool over 6 new 900+ footers by 2016 but that is really kind of the minimum of what'll be built by then. 

And azn, you left a couple out, Manhattan West Tower II but needs tenants, and 30 Park Place.


----------



## RobertWalpole (Mar 16, 2010)

I wonder why NY is the only city in the developed world with so many supertalls u/c or about to start? The two other financial capitals, London and HK don't have any. (The Shard, while beautiful, has its upper 25% of its height as an unoccupied crown, so it's cheating to be a "supertall". And, foregetting that, it's the only "supertall" in London.)


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

I would hardly call the NY Times Tower a supertall. It's a 227m building with a 91m thin steel stick on it's top hno:


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm not entirely sure but doesn't London have a lot sight line restrictions that could hinder high rise construction? And HK sort of recently got ICC and 2 IFC.

I think a lot of it is NY hasn't really built any new office space over the past 20 years, when you take into consideration the loss of the WTC and it's 14 million sf of office space. So companies have had to just sort of make due with what they could find. So Morgan Stanley has a midtown and a downtown office, as does Merryl Lynch, Citi has locations all over Manhattan, TWC has 3 separate midtown addresses, the list goes on, and those companies want to consolidate space as much as possible. It's just not efficient to be scattered all over the place.

There's also the fact that regardless of your views of the bailout and the Federal Reserve, large financial institutions that are are either HQd in NY or have huge offices here were given hundreds of billions of dollars, were the prime beneficiaries, and continue to benefit from the Feds qualitative easing. With that in mind, obviously those institutions employ a ton of people in the city who make good money and need places to live, and want nice apartments.

I think also the value of the dollar has something to do with it as well. It makes NY an ever more attractive place to visit and invest, or to buy real estate as we've seen. 

Also doesn't hurt that Manhattan's an island, and the only way to go is up!


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

RobertWalpole said:


> I wonder why NY is the only city in the developed world with so many supertalls u/c or about to start? The two other financial capitals, London and HK don't have any. (The Shard, while beautiful, has its upper 25% of its height as an unoccupied crown, so it's cheating to be a "supertall". And, foregetting that, it's the only "supertall" in London.)


Cost of land I guess. HK earns its money from the sale of land so as they fill in the harbor, they are literally printing money. And developers there have to build huge towers to recoup those costs. NYC is just as bad. Few large developable parcels in Manhattan and enormous up front costs have pushed developers into supertall mode to maximize the GLA. London has been low-rise for so long that huge swathes of the city are offices and the market for bulk office space is limited to the big financial houses. That would be my guess, along with all of the zoning restrictions and approval processes.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

@Yankees fan. Manhattan West Tower II is listed as number 20 on the list. Do you mind providing a link for me so I can check it out?

@Kanto. Do not turn my thread into another roof vs spire debate. I don't care what you use. I explicitly stated that I listed the buildings by official height. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

@Yankees fan again. 2IFC was completed in 2003, so it isn't exactly new. But the ICC (2010) and the Nina Towers (2010 I think, maybe 2008) are recent supertalls in Hong Kong 

@Anyone. Is there a way for me to make the list a bit cleaner? Like have proper columns or something? Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

I only stated my opinion that several of the buildings you listed as supertalls shouldn't be supertalls hno:


----------



## RobertWalpole (Mar 16, 2010)

yankeesfan1000 said:


> I'm not entirely sure but doesn't London have a lot sight line restrictions that could hinder high rise construction? And HK sort of recently got ICC and 2 IFC.
> 
> I think a lot of it is NY hasn't really built any new office space over the past 20 years....


NY has built A LOT of office towers in recent years. WAY more than any other US city and as least as much, if not more, than any city in other locations in the developed world.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

Manhattan West link, and 30 Park Place. Didn't know which one you were asking about.

Agreed, a lot of office buildings have been built recently, but not in comparison to other decades in the cities history. Regardless, the next decade will certainly be fun to watch as a skyscraper fan, it will completely transform the skyline.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

@Kanto. Well they are.

@Yankees fan. I was referring to 30 Park Place. Thanks. I forgot about that one . I'll update the list.

Edit. I'm confused. Is the building names 99 Church Street or 30 Park Place? And is the floor count 68 or 80?


----------



## oilmanjr (Jan 13, 2011)

Kanto said:


> I only stated my opinion that several of the buildings you listed as supertalls shouldn't be supertalls hno:


Then this thread obviously isn't for you.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

That sounds rather interesting, tell me, what do you think when you count a thin steel stick as a building? Please explain me that. I have never understood how somebody might think that a thin steel stick is a building :dunno:


----------



## RobertWalpole (Mar 16, 2010)

New York is really on a roll! It's the only city in the developed world that's on such a huge skyscraper spree!


----------



## germantower (May 23, 2006)

Kanto said:


> That sounds rather interesting, tell me, what do you think when you count a thin steel stick as a building? Please explain me that. I have never understood how somebody might think that a thin steel stick is a building :dunno:


The thin steel stick isnt considere as a building, but as part of it. And if its in the final design of a building,and not attached later, it counts to its overall height. As much as you are against it, this are the rules. So move on Kanto, and dont spread your false dogmatic thoughts all over the forum.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

azn_man12345 said:


> @Kanto. Well they are.
> 
> @Yankees fan. I was referring to 30 Park Place. Thanks. I forgot about that one . I'll update the list.
> 
> Edit. I'm confused. Is the building names 99 Church Street or 30 Park Place? And is the floor count 68 or 80?


I hadn't even heard of it having 80 floors, so I think 68 is the correct height. As for the building name I think 30 Park Place is the official name but those two addresses represent the same building. Since it will be part hotel, part residential, I assume one of those addresses will be for the hotel, and one for the residential unit, but again it's the same building.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

yankeesfan1000 said:


> I hadn't even heard of it having 80 floors, so I think 68 is the correct height. As for the building name I think 30 Park Place is the official name but those two addresses represent the same building. Since it will be part hotel, part residential, I assume one of those addresses will be for the hotel, and one for the residential unit, but again it's the same building.


Ah okay thanks. I asked about the floor count because that was in the thread title of the link you gave. But thanks, I got it now. I'll update the list.


Kanto. Do not talk about spires vs roofs in my thread. I've had enough of you over on the WTC forums.


----------



## avatar1 (Jul 10, 2011)

del


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Where did you get 31? I only see 24 buildings that are 300m+. I said that NY would have about 16 supertalls in the near future, but I listed the 900 footers anyway for the sake of having a big list


----------



## avatar1 (Jul 10, 2011)

del


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Hey guys. Did you know that The Drake might possibly be 420 meters tall!? Check it out here:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=82993879&postcount=118

Credit goes to RobertWalpole for bringing us this wonderful news 

If The Drake is indeed going to be 420 meters tall, that would be second tallest in NYC (3rd by pinnacle), taller then the original WTC Twins, and possibly, if it reaches its height to the roof like the other 57 street biggies, the tallest roof in NYC


----------



## oilmanjr (Jan 13, 2011)

Just because it is replacing the Drake Hotel, will it also be called Drake? I can't wait to see a render!


----------



## DinoVabec (Nov 12, 2007)

Great Thread azn..I'm gonna help you out and post the map of Manhattan with all those projects..


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

That would be very much appreciated Dino. Thank you for the help


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

*update: Apparently, 440 Park (The Drake) might be as tall as *433* meters tall! That is about 1420 feet. 

Source: STR over on SSC:


STR said:


> If that diagram is properly scaled, that building is 1,420 feet tall. Which...gotta say...holy crap. Even more astounding than that is the width, which if that is accurate, is a shockingly thin 98 feet wide. Which makes for an astounding 14.5:1 height:width ratio. That thing is an engineering marvel.
> 
> I might be off on the count, but I also have 89 floors, with an average slab height of 16'.



If it is indeed 433m, it would (as stated earlier), be the tallest roof in NY and the second tallest roof in the country (after Willis Tower)! 

Also, if all proposals come to fruition, it will be the 5th tallest building in the country after the Chicago Old Post Office Redevelopment (2000ft), 1 World Trade Center (1776ft), American Commerce Center (1510ft), and Willis Tower (1451ft)!


----------



## oilmanjr (Jan 13, 2011)

Maybe the historic Drake was worth getting rid of afterall.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

^Many people are disagreeing. Basically, it'll be an extremely tall but incredibly skinny (98m) box. Personally, I think that if they can get the right kind of cladding and maybe a certain grid-like design for the glass holders, it could look alright. Otherwise, it could really mess up the skyline.


----------



## DinoVabec (Nov 12, 2007)

Here's what I've done so far..It's still not done, but it will be soon..

Yellow color = Skyscrapers
Red color = Supertalls
Green color = Complex of buildings (Without Hudson Yards)

Colored title = U/C
White title = Proposed

Whole NYC










Lower Manhattan










Midtown










More and better map coming soon..


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

Wow. That's nice Dino. Thanks. I can't wait for the better version


----------



## oilmanjr (Jan 13, 2011)

Hopefully we can see some more of those titles change to yellow soon. Looks good though!


----------

