Is New York done with skyscrapers?

[bkmonkey]

Originally Posted by PHLguy

No one knows the answer, there are far too many hurdles for new york to build a skyscraper. Look at FT, and the lawsuit, we can kiss that building goodbye. But yes, new york is a big city with lots of demand so of course many 900 footers will hopefully be built, NY will never see a WTB or something the height of the trade towers again but it really doesn't need to when you think about it. Dubai just thinks it's hot shit, NY and Chicago blow it away. New york can be a very dissapointing city I will agree, because it moves slow.

I dissagree, the Freedom tower will be built on schedule, there is way to much riding on that. NYC is just going through a phase. ( Just as it did when it tore down the old Penn Station). The reason why Beekman tower (taller than 1000 feet) and 80 south street (taller than 1000 feet) as well as BOA (pretty tall) Miss Brooklyn (pretty tall), the new WTC complex ( entire new downtown area) dont generate much excitment, is because NYC is full of skycrapers. New High rises are built all the time. People are not generally excited by skycrapers as much as they were in the early part of the century. Once this phase of projects is complete, it's quite possible that it will usher in a new era of building, and anti-nimbyism. These huge projects will create quite a bit of precedent.

[ddny]

I don't think NYC is done with skyscrapers yet, but I think NYC has a lot of catching up with good quality architecture.

NYC is sorely behind in terms of the quality of skyscraper design and architecture in general when compared to other world cities.

I hope NYC will follow the footsteps of London, which in my opinion, is designing the best skyscrapers in the world right now. London is on the skyscraper map not because of 1000 footers, but because of the designs of the skyscrapers that are being built or proposed.

I think Hearst Tower and 80 South Street are good buildings for NYC, but the majority of the bunch (e.g. Random House Tower, Time Warner Center, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, etc.) don't really have much to offer.

[PHLguy]

what I think what the title meant was height^


Not sure though.

[RJW]

Originally Posted by PHLguy

No one knows the answer, there are far too many hurdles for new york to build a skyscraper. Look at FT, and the lawsuit, we can kiss that building goodbye. But yes, new york is a big city with lots of demand so of course many 900 footers will hopefully be built, NY will never see a WTB or something the height of the trade towers again but it really doesn't need to when you think about it. Dubai just thinks it's hot shit, NY and Chicago blow it away. New york can be a very dissapointing city I will agree, because it moves slow.

So much doom and gloom is completely unwarranted in consideration of the amount (and type) of building activity New York City has seen in the last 380 years. There is just no enduring reason for New York not to see WTC building heights and above again. That mode of thinking is contrary to the American spirit and certainly not representational of New York's (skyscrapers are our heritage). I think the building of superstructures in other parts of the world only help such prospects. Our planet is becoming an incredibly small place and the march forward for all of us should no longer be characterized as a zero sum game.

[bkmonkey]

New York Architecture is very corporate and no nonsense. Think about the old WTC. Its not that nyc is behid the times, its that nyc has its old style.

NYC has many more skycrapers that Chicago, whoever says differently is wrong

The nyc skyline should include Jersey city and perhaps Newark. There are certain points where the Goldman Tower looks like its in manhattan. (looking down west end avenue) It is definatly part of the harbor.

[PHLguy]

NYC has more skyscrapers but chicago is better porportioned, and taller. I love NY but when I look at the skyline driving on the jersey turnpike by the oil refineries all I see is a big clump of 750 foot buildings and the ESB, of cousre the city is far better looking from other angles, such as from queens, I think it blows Chi away from there, but it all depends on where you look at it.

[PHLguy]

Originally Posted by RJW

So much doom and gloom is completely unwarranted in consideration of the amount (and type) of building activity New York City has seen in the last 380 years. There is just no enduring reason for New York not to see WTC building heights and above again. That mode of thinking is contrary to the American spirit and certainly not representational of New York's (skyscrapers are our heritage). I think the building of superstructures in other parts of the world only help such prospects. Our planet is becoming an incredibly small place and the march forward for all of us should no longer be characterized as a zero sum game.

I'm not trying to be a downer, I'm trying to be realistic.


Reasons buildings will never hit the height of the WTC again in NY (and I do hope I'm wrong)

1. NIMBYS, NY has a shitload of them, and they shorten alot of buildings! (except of corse for ghery tower which ironically the NIMBYS made taller, which tickles me inside. but we'll have to see if it will even get built)

2. Zoning laws. Along with San Francisco NY has some of the strictest zoning laws in the nation.

3. Fear, Fear of terrorism is not over.

4. New Yorkers don't really care about skyscrapers when you look at a broad spectrum. Most aren't Nimbys but most aren't "Yimbys" like us either.

5. Economic. It is not profitable to build towers over 60-70 floors, NY is all about money, Dubai is all about ego.

[RJW]

Originally Posted by PHLguy

I'm not trying to be a downer, I'm trying to be realistic.

1. NIMBYS can be broken.
2. Zoning laws can be changed.
3. Terrorism has not stopped the Freedom Tower (hate that name) from getting to 1400 feet or the proposal of a 2000 foot (residential!) tower in Chicago (not NY, I know, but its not exactly a foreign country either).
4. Most New Yorkers never cared about skyscrapers (or even who is President judging by voting statistics) - super skyscrapers are the product of dreamers and ego.
5. Not profitable - I read this a lot - it's the gospel of anti-development leftist NIMBYS - so I refer you to number 4 (super skyscrapers are the product of dreamers and ego) - NIMBYS know it - that’s why they embrace zoning laws (after all, it can't be their concern that a developer might lose his shirt).

[pianoman11686]

PHLguy:

Firstly, part of the reason the skyline doesn't look that great from the turnpike is because there is a huge cliff that stretches for several miles along the Hudson River, and from certain angles, it actually cuts off the view of the bottom half of Manhattan's skyline. As you approach the Lincoln Tunnel on 495, and finally clear the hill when the "helix" begins, the impact is truly stunning, and there is plenty of height to marvel at. It'll only get better as the Hudson Yards area fills in, and surrounding buildings like NY Times and BOA extend corporate Midtown westward.

Secondly, even despite the cliff and the "plateau effect", there is a certain astonishment that most people experience when they first see the skyline from the turnpike, for the simple reason that it stretches on and on and on. Most skylines are defined by 5-10 tall buildings; Manhattan's appears to stretch as far as the eye can see. Most people who have never seen New York in person must wonder, "Wow, is it really that big?" This, I think, is much more awesome than seeing one or two supertalls piercing the sky within a few blocks of each other.

Thirdly, how can you even begin to predict the future? You have no idea what the economy will look like in 5-10 years, locally or nationally. Right now, New York is being fueled by residential development, which results in a lot of 20-30 story buildings. Don't think that there will always be enough room for these. Sure, it costs to build tall, but Manhattan has very finite space, and eventually, residentials will have to go much taller. We're already seeing the beginnings of this at the Con Ed site.

You lament the existence of NIMBY's. Sure, they can be a pain, but the type of construction that will most likely yield the tallest buildings is commercial. The core of Midtown has very few residents, thus there's no reason to expect NIMBY's to oppose commercial supertalls there. Right now, residential construction is the rave. We might well see a period of corporate growth which will result in higher demand for capital and employees, both of which need to be housed in new buildings.

You point out our strict zoning laws. Bloomberg has rezoned more land in the city than any mayor in recent memory. There's no reason to think that he'll stop this habit any time soon. Plus, incentives that often accompany rezonings will make places like the Far West Side a hotbed of development.

You highlight fear of terrorism, yet most people know that the likelihood of another aerial attack is minimal. Terrorists will look to disrupt every day life through mass transit bombings (for the most part) and some will try to detonate biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter how tall your building is in that scenario. It's not a target. The city is. And come to think of it, you'd probably be safest in a tall, modern building with excellent ventilation. The fact that people are coming to New York in droves to live, and companies are also starting to return, signals that "fear" does not affect their conscious decision to live/work in the city.

You point out that most New Yorkers don't care about skyscrapers. I've got a news flash for you. Most, if not all developers, don't care that New Yorkers don't care! They design buildings for specific clients - people or businesses - that are looking for apartments or offices. The more demand, the more construction we'll see.

So, don't get your hopes down. And don't try to get everyone else's hopes down either. There's no way you can prove that your scenario will play out, and mine won't.

[BrooklynRider]

Well, that pretty well sums it up.

[ddny]

Originally Posted by bkmonkey

New York Architecture is very corporate and no nonsense. Think about the old WTC. Its not that nyc is behid the times, its that nyc has its old style.

London still has it's old style too, but its new architecture is very forward looking. It should be the same with New York.

[RJW]

Originally Posted by ddny

London still has it's old style too, but its new architecture is very forward looking. It should be the same with New York.

I agree but like to think that things are headed, at least, in the right direction. Conde Nast, NY Times, Time Warner, Bank of America, Hearst, Altantic Yards, Calatrava (transit and 80 south), the Meier condos, even 7 WTC - all these developments are of so much better quality and in some cases forward looking than what we were getting in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

[Ninjahedge]

OK, this is stupid.

Chicago Skyline (copyright Richard Seamen)


Looks like downtown NYC. Not midtown, not anywhere else.

NYC Skyline (JUST Midtown)


Shanghai, while diverse, is TINY!


Hong Kong.

Looks a LOT like NYC except for two things.

1. The mountain in the background.
2. The buildings, although about the same size, are more modern in design and construction.



So please cut it out with this juvenile argument about how "NYC is entering its decline just like the fall of Rome" and "They do not want to build any TALL buildings".

i hate to tell you, but anything above 10 stories is big. 10-30 is a mid-rise. 30-about 50 is a HIGH rise, and above that is a skyscraper, although the two have been used interchangeably depending on where it is.

They have a thread on this here: http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com...?showtopic=531

Where the definition is more based on building function than actual height.

So anyone that goes out and looks at a 500 foot tall building and does not think it is a skyscraper just because there are a a dozen buildings that are above 1000ft needs to get their heads out of the sand. You are the same people that buy the bigger TV not because you can actually see anything more on it, but because it is BIGGER.


Tallest Buildings: (Sorry for the formatting.....And OK, so there are 25 buildings above 1000ft!)

Rank Building Year M Ft Stories
1 Taipei 101, Taipei, Taiwan 2004 508 1,668 101
2 Petronas Tower I, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1998 452 1,483 88
(tie) 2 Petronas Tower II, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1998 452 1,483 88
4 Sears Tower, Chicago (IL), United States 1974 442 1,450 110
5 Jin Mao Building, Shanghai, China 1998 421 1,380 88
6 Two International Finance Centre, Hong Kong, China 2003 412 1,352 88
7 CITIC Plaza, Guangzhou, China 1997 391 1,283 80
8 Shun Hing Square, Shenzhen, China 1996 384 1,260 69
9 Empire State Building, New York (NY), United States 1931 381 1,250 102
10 Central Plaza, Hong Kong, China 1992 374 1,227 78
11 Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong, China 1989 368 1,209 72
12 Emirates Office Tower, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 1999 355 1,165 55
13 T & C Tower, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 1997 347 1,140 85
14 Aon Center, Chicago (IL), United States 1973 346 1,136 80
15 The Center, Hong Kong, China 1998 346 1,135 73
16 John Hancock Center, Chicago (IL), United States 1967 344 1,127 100
17 Ryugyong Hotel, Pyongyang, North Korea 1995 330 1,083 105
18 Sky Tower, Auckland, New Zealand 1997 328 1,076 ?
19 Burj al Arab Hotel, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 1999 321 1,053 60
20 Chrysler Building, New York (NY), United States 1930 319 1,046 77
21 Bank of America Plaza, Atlanta (GA), United States 1993 312 1,023 55
22 U.S. Bank Tower, Los Angeles (CA), United States 1990 310 1,018 75
23 Telekom Malaysia Headquarters, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1999 310 1,017 55
24 Emirates Towers Hotel, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 2000 309 1,014 56
25 AT&T Corporate Center, Chicago (IL), United States 1989 307 1,007 60

[RJW]

I don’t think anyone is saying that a 750 foot building is not tall so much as lamenting the fact that buildings this height and lower do nothing but reinforce the monotonous plateau our city's skyline has become. As I stated earlier... The most important element of a dynamic skyline is contrast (something only structures taller than their surroundings can deliver). If you look at old prewar pictures of downtown you see a breathtaking skyline that is now lost to the gradual lessening of contrast (plateaus make poor skylines). It is an issue of relativity (not height per se) for if every building in New York were 1500 feet the problem would be the same.

[ablarc]

RJW nails it from an aesthetic standpoint; there's no arguing with the truth of what he says. You can belittle its importance, but you can't dispute the reality of the phenomenon.