Will New York continue to have world's tallest skyscrapers?

[Freedom Tower]

We all know that the new "Freedom Tower" is supposed to be the world's tallest building when completed. However, we also know of the possible WTBs in South Korea, Turkey, and the UAE. I have just read about a new one. A proposed WTB in Russia.
A link to skyscraperpage:
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1575
will show you another building much taller than the Freedom Tower is being planned. This brings me to the question, since construction on the Freedom Tower hasn't even been started yet and so many taller buildings are being planned does anyone have an opinion on whether NYC will ever be host to the worlds tallest again? We also must remember the zoning laws, economic issues and NIMBYs in NYC. Even if the Freedom Tower is the WTB how long will that last?

[Fabb]

I don't want to offend anyone, but the Freedom Tower is so cheap and empty, that, yes, it could become the WTB for a short period of time, even if its construction starts after that of the Korean building.

[Kris]

Let's call Taiwan to the rescue.

http://www.pbase.com/image/19042011.jpg

[JMGarcia]

LOL! All you need now is a matching tower shaped like a Mai Tai with a little umbrella in it. ;)

(I know that was bad but I couldn't help myself.)

[ZippyTheChimp]

A bio-mechanical wonder.

[DominicanoNYC]

Hehe.:) I know proclaim it the Palm Tower. But I hope that NYC will continue to build WTBs.

[NoyokA]

Fabb, I dont think I need to remind you....

but....

The Freedom Tower is in the process of a re-design.

[ddny]

I'm looking for a renovated subway system, better architecture, and more parks.

Oh yeah...WTB would be nice, but not a necessity. Some tall buildings to "fix" the skyline would be fine.

[NoyokA]

Mind you all we know about the Freedom Tower is that it will be a contender at 1776 feet, and that number is set in stone.

[Freedom Tower]

That is true Stern. Although the current design for the Freedom Tower is quite cheap and empty, it is far from the final plan. The only fact we can count on is the 1,776 feet. The height is also one of the towers few good qualities. However, I'm pretty sure the spire is there to stay as well. I still think Silverstein wants to stick with his "No office space above 70 stories". That decision will probably keep the design cheap and empty, unless there is some residential units. While in these other countries (Russia, UAE, Turkey, S. Korea) the plans clal for well over 100 floors of occupyable space. However, right now we know very little about any of these proposals. I just hope we can see some new renderings sometime soon for the freedom tower.

[Fabb]

Quote: from Stern on 9:58 pm on Aug. 20, 2003
Fabb, I dont think I need to remind you....

but....

The Freedom Tower is in the process of a re-design.


That's right.
Now, the question is : will it get closer to a legitimate WTB, or will it be basically the same building "sanitized" by Childs ?

[TLOZ Link5]

Aside from marginal, dwindling fears of tall skyscrapers and perhaps NIMBYism, the only threat I can perceive to skyscrapers taller than the Freedom Tower in New York would be sentimentality. *Its height, 1776, reflects a very historical number in American (and world) history. *Architects and developers might make a sort of "gentleman's agreement" not to build higher than the Freedom Tower for the same reason that in Philadelphia no structure would challenge City Hall's supremacy on the skyline for many years; or that in Washington no building can be taller than the Capitol. *Other than that, I'd say that the sky is the limit.

[JMGarcia]

I've said this before but NY and the US in general have been in a period where skyscrapers are no longer built primarly by ego but instead primarily based on financial considerations. Current technology makes the most financially viable buildings in NY to be in the 50 story range. NY's tallest buildings are all quite old.

The 1776 foot Freedom Tower is only being built to that height because of emotional reasons stemming from 9/11. There is simply no way that something that height would have been built otherwise. Therefore I do not expect any supertall buildings to be built in NY for many decades at the least.

[TLOZ Link5]

Just as well, the concept of building skyscrapers composed of more than one use have become an incentive to build higher—not just in New York but elsewhere. *Like you said Garcia, that point has been discussed before, too.

[Kris]

"Therefore I do not expect any supertall buildings to be built in NY for many decades at the least."

It's impossible to make reliable predictions so far into the future. I don't think it will happen this decade, that's all I'll say.

[JMGarcia]

Quote: from Kris on 9:57 pm on Aug. 22, 2003
"Therefore I do not expect any supertall buildings to be built in NY for many decades at the least."

It's impossible to make reliable predictions so far into the future. I don't think it will happen this decade, that's all I'll say. Fair enough, but I think things would have to change drastically for that to happen.

[Fabb]

Like an irresistible desire to test innovative ideas produced by a reflection on the topic ?

Isn't it what happened in Europe after WWII ?

[LF22]

I doubt that New York City will continue to build the WTB's after the freedom tower. It's one thing to build a tall building, another to build the tallest. Its simply not economical enough to build super high structures. New WTB's are now built sometimes to mirror political rivalries. These include building Petronas to the response of the massive skyline of Singapore, which broke away from the Malaysian Federation in the 60's. This is even more apparent in the building craze between arch-rivals Taiwan and China. The Taipei 101 and the Shanghai World Finance Center are examples of this rivalry. Non, of these buildings would have existed if not for these rivalries. Outbuilding each other has become the new battleground for the asian tigers. Not that it's a bad thing of course.

[Freedom Tower]

But LF22, who was the U.S. competing with for skyscrapers when we had our boom? I think back in the 1930s the US, and mainly New York, were the only people building them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[LF22]

Freedom, back then there was still competition, just not on the vast international political scale. The New York skyscrapers of the roaring 20's were built by the industrial tycoons of Ameica of the time to showcase thier superiority. These included the chrysler, empire, and metlife building. (Is that what it's called? , the 1000 footer one before the chrysler.

[TLOZ Link5]

40 Wall wasn't a thousand-footer, but it was the tallest for a time.

Before the Park Row Building was completed, the main rivalry for skyscraper domination was between Chicago and New York. *For a brief period between 1901 (City Hall) and 1908 (Singer Tower) the focus was between NYC and Philadelphia. *In the '20s and '30s it was between Midtown and Downtown. *Chicago lagged behind for a while until 1969, when the 860-foot Bank One Plaza and the 1,127-foot John Hancock Center were completed.

[Freedom Tower]

Yeah, LF22, the ESB and Chrysler are the only two thousand footers NYC currently has.

[LF22]

yesssssss, right now the 4 tallest skyscrapers in NYC are also some of the city's oldest. Boy, talk about irony.

[DominicanoNYC]

There was a thread on this but I forgot where it was. I just hope NYC catches up with other competeing countries and cities (Hong Kong, Shanghai, and many other cities). Now Beijin is going to build a 1,000 footer called the Chinese World Trade Center Tower III. I think most of you should be familiar with this project. It was designed by SOM.

[Freedom Tower]

How come SOM seems to be designing thousand footers for everywhere in the world (UAE, China, etc.) but then in the USA they don't want to build high?

[TLOZ Link5]

It isn't the architects who don't want to build high, Freedom Tower. *It's the developers.

[Freedom Tower]

That's true, but you have to remember SOMs design for the WTC. They could've done pretty much anything but they had a bunch of horrible twisted 80 story towers. None of them were thousand footers. They had a chance to design something great for the site but they didn't. But I'm sure if a developer wanted a thousand foot building they'd design one.

[JMGarcia]

The architects in the WTC competition were all told in advance of Silverstein's restrictions. Some chose to ignore them (Foster and UA) and it got them nowhere even though Foster especially was quite popular.

Libeskind and THINK toed Silverstein's line so to speak and were rewarded with being finalists.

I take it that SOM did there 9 1000 foot buildings in response to that restriction.

[Jasonik]

Is Silverstein's height restriction based on insurance premiums? *

I remember reading that terrorism insurance rates are through the roof (pardon the pun) after 9/11, and I would bet this site is pretty hot in terms of risk. *

Any thoughts/articles?

[JMGarcia]

I think insurance premiums are only part of the picture. Most of it is basic econimics. The best return on investment comes from buildings in the 45-60 floor range. This is even truer with additional insurance costs for a taller structure. Any taller and all costs increase exponentially. There has to be a reason other than economics to build taller and take on the heavy extra expense. This is usually something symbolic to draw attention (e.g. Petronas, Dubai) or ego driven (e.g China, Taiwan).

The US no longer seems to have developers that see any symbolic reason to go higher nor any that have a big enough ego. Even if they did, the banks would probably put a stop to it by not lending.

The WTC provided the best incentive for a symbolically tall tower and had the added benefit of not needing bank financing. But, as we've all seen, the least expensive option has been chosen. Proving that economics are still the bottom line here.

[Agglomeration]

This least-common-denominator height lmits for new skyscrapers is an attitude that has to be changed. I know it won't happen overnight, but someone like Trump has got to start the process sooner or later.

[Freedom Tower]

Also, there is much empty office space in Manhattan now, if im not mistaken. When it is all filled up and the demand for office space is high maybe developers will see the profit in building much taller. Hopefully when most of the developable land is used up and the office demand is high once again huge buildings will be built on the little remaining space to build in Manhattan.

[TLOZ Link5]

Tokyo has proposed a skyscraper over 1,100 feet, the centerpiece of a mixed-use development also encompassing twin 800-foot apartment buildings and a third 650-foot apartment building.

[Fabb]

That's what happens when there's a lot of cash and no better investment.
Very tall buildings are one of the best options for the long term.
What kills them is the prospect of much faster returns like a bull market at the stock exchange.

[Zzed]

when will LMDC drop the silly claim about Freedom Tower being the WTB? even Silverstein describes Freedom Tower realistically as a "major and a significant building" and it would be in his interest to promote it as the world's tallest IF it were true. eventually the politicians and people will wake up and see they've been sold a lemon. FT will not be the WTB but it will symbolize failure to meet the challenge and the eclipse of New York as the leading city of the world.

[antinimby]

The above reasons for not building tall in the city may all be true, but never, ever forget one BIG factor: NIMBYS!
They seem to abound in this city. :x