Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Nov 19, 2007 14:29:15 GMT -5
I have so many pictures but can't post them all now. It's all amazing. Dubai, eat your heart out. This new MEGAproject is basically a third World Trade Center for NYC. It's even bigger than the new WTC. It will be one of these six plans and construction may start as early as 09. Each plan seems to have at least two supertall skyscrapers, if not more, and many others. 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Nov 19, 2007 16:12:22 GMT -5
#3 is my favorite!
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Nov 19, 2007 16:56:43 GMT -5
My bad; there are only 5 plans. Great minds think alike! #3 is the same as #5.I hope that SOM wins! They not only seem to have the tallest, but also the best: And this is only the start of all the new skyscrapers. It's hard to believe that NY secured four or five buildings over 1,000 feet tall in less than a month!
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Nov 20, 2007 0:09:23 GMT -5
Funny, I didn't even notice that 3 and 5 were the same. 3 looks a lot less cramped than 5.
That pedestrian bridge over the highway reminds me of Gehry's bridge for Chicago's Millennium Park. I love curvy lines like that; to me, that's what "the future" looks like. Not the hexagonal stylings of Magic Kingdom's Tommorowland, lol.
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Nov 20, 2007 13:20:38 GMT -5
Okay, hold on to your seats; it's time for me to BS: I'd have to say that all five of these master plans blow both La Defense and Canary Wharf away, and KEEP IN MIND that this is only a part of the developments to come on the West Side CBD of Manhattan. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The best plan is obviously the one by Brookfield and SOM. Its tallest tower is 1,300' and I'm sure that it has other supertalls. It adds the most to the skyline and the design is anything but bad. Out of all the plans, the creators of this one obviously took the most time to plan it out. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I really don't think that the Tishman plan is horrible, and I'm unsure if it could make much of a vertical difference in the skyline. It's towers would be massive in terms of size, the two largest in the city, and it would be mostly office, like the WTC. The first pair of massive towers each have about 60 floors and for the second pair, about 70 each, and 1,000' tall. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The NewsCorp one adds over a dozen 33-75 floor buildings to the skyline, but even the tallest one at about 1,100 feet tall doesn't have much of an impact from some angles. I do like the fact that it has that massive diagrid tower, which simply looks great from what I have seen. Like all of the plans, they need to provide more renderings of how everything will look in the skyline and up close. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Sherwood/Durst plan is quite nice and would be very green, which they stressed. It's tallest tower with 80-plus floors is over 1,200 feet tall and looks like a building that would add a lot to this city. They also have a lot of other very tall buildings which all fit together well. The buildings have mind-blowing bases. I guess they did some reserch beforehand because they understood that the proposed Sunflower and Sherwood supertall towers would be close by their site. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- And last but not least, the Extell plan rocks our world. It contains an 800'-er, a few 500-600' tall towers, six 740-foot-tall "Sunslice" towers which are nearly clones, but don't look half bad, and, most importantly, three massive skyscrapers, 90 floors and up, connected at the crown by a "thingy," about as tall as the Empire State Building. The apex would create more observation space than the Empire State Building and the Rock combined, not to mention that it would be taller than theirs! Believe it or not, this plan creates a suspension bridge supported by the skyscrapers. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- All of the plans have lots of green space, cultural and retail centers, and many tall skyscrapers. In conclusion, no matter what happens, NY wins.
|
|
|
Post by {joy the hideous new girl} on Nov 20, 2007 20:55:15 GMT -5
While the designs are very cool, this obsessive need to keep building makes me really sad. At least it's happening in New York, where wildlife and clean air are pretty much eliminated anyway.
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Nov 20, 2007 21:28:14 GMT -5
NY’s air isn’t bad at all, the water is perfect, and the city as a whole has a lot of wildlife, more than most other large cities, and also the same for green space and parks; because of density, it’s also the greenest city in America and all of the newer buildings are being built with high environmental standards in mind, especially every single new building in this thread.
It’s no ‘obsession,’ but a ‘need’ and it shouldn't make you sad or even concern you. Manhattan is literally running out of space so fast that the only way to be ready for tomorrow is to build on every last plot of available land and make the plans as ambitious and large and tall as possible. There is no way a place like Manhattan can ever stop its obsession, need, for constant new construction and renewal and expect to remain the center of the world.
Once this major cycle of building ends in around ten years, I don't know what will happen because there's no space left. The Hudson Yards thing a few posts up was the last free piece of land. During the next cycle, we'll most likely see buildings passing 2,000 feet like buildings passing 1,000 feet this cycle. The only way to build then would be to raze smaller buildings to build larger ones, or to transform the smaller ones into towers, something's that's taking place now, but will occur almost always in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Elphie_Enthusiast on Nov 21, 2007 22:44:30 GMT -5
right. well, what will we do when we run out of land? or materials to keep these things that we are constantly building runnning? dose it occur to you that there are more problems in the world with big cities than just land use? I love NYC but it is killing our environment. I honestaly do not want to contininue with this trend that we have started in greenhouse gas emissions. I personally think that we need to rethink out rapid consumption of the resources that we have. they will not last forever. we will run out of land eventualy. and even if we don't have to deal wth it right now, we will eventually. my grandma was born before the Great Depression. imagine the cahnges that she has lived through. we will live through the same kinds of changes, breakthroughs, depressions and everything else. remembeer not all of it will be good. i just hope that we can stop any of these problems from getting any worst than they already are.
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Nov 22, 2007 10:58:09 GMT -5
right. well, what will we do when we run out of land? or materials to keep these things that we are constantly building runnning? dose it occur to you that there are more problems in the world with big cities than just land use? I love NYC but it is killing our environment. I honestaly do not want to contininue with this trend that we have started in greenhouse gas emissions. I personally think that we need to rethink out rapid consumption of the resources that we have. they will not last forever. we will run out of land eventualy. and even if we don't have to deal wth it right now, we will eventually. my grandma was born before the Great Depression. imagine the cahnges that she has lived through. we will live through the same kinds of changes, breakthroughs, depressions and everything else. remembeer not all of it will be good. i just hope that we can stop any of these problems from getting any worst than they already are. When Manhattan Island is depleted of free land in a few years, like I said, there only one thing to do: build taller – something which solves every problem, including environmental ones. Quite frankly, we will never be depleted of materials which are used to build. It's all steel, concrete, and glass, and plastics which can all be reused or are plentiful. You seem to forget than if everyone on this planet consumed and polluted as much as the average New York City resident, there would be no pollution or energy problems. It’s the only city in the Americas that's not built for the car, meaning that most people take alternant, cleaner ways of transportation because cars are less useful, and because of the density, the energy we consume is far less than that of the average American. The main problem in NY seems to be the older skyscrapers, which consume more power than just about anything, but even they are being upgraded as I type. Whoever told you that NYC is killing the environment is quite wrong; other cities use New York City as their example to become cleaner and use less power, and new architectural and scientific ideas to conserve and protect the environment are being born here every year. Where there are people, there’s pollution, but NY is indeed preventing the current environmental problems from getting worse than they currently are. When it comes to big cities like NY and London, there are no major pollution and energy problems, and both cities are working to become even better. If you feel the need to point a finger, point it at Chinese cities, places where it’s foggy literally every day and where more energy is consumed than anywhere else. For example, every building there is as showy and lit up as bright as possible; not only does it kill every bird in sight, but it also uses too much power, creating more pollution. If you don’t believe me about NY, just take a look at the skyline. Right now you might think that the BoA Tower, the second tallest building in New York and the East Coast, consumes more power than just about any other structure, but the opposite is true. The tower is a massive air cleaner, just like a lot of new New York skyscrapers; it LITERALLY sucks in polluted air from hundreds of feet high in the sky, efficiently cleans it, and spits it back out into Manhattan. It collects rain water and recycles it; it uses solar and wind power via its wind turbine spire. It has a special glass than keeps the heat inside when it’s cold outside and keeps sunlight and warmth in when it’s cold outside. There’s much more than I can’t even remember. It’s the greenest skyscraper in the world, and New York will be building many more just like it.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Nov 24, 2007 23:16:58 GMT -5
^Yup! I think the Bank of America tower is LEED certified. Check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_DesignEven though NC is one of the greenest places I've ever visited, the sprawled layout of the cities actually wastes resources. New York doesn't seem green, because it is an urban area. But there are more people living in a single block in NYC then there are living in downtown Greensboro.
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Nov 25, 2007 3:03:28 GMT -5
Yeah, this city is a leader when is comes to building green skyscrapers. It's all so amazing, all of these new towers. Like the OLD Freedom Tower, the MoMA Tower, over 1,100 feet tall, and maybe as tall or taller than the Empire State Building, will have solar panels and wind turbines in her spire. The NY Bank of America Tower recently, at 1,200 feet tall, she's the second tallest building in NY - for now. One foot taller than the Chrysler Building, the NY Times Tower is the third tallest building in NY - for now. You really have to see her in person to understand how amazing she looks. New skyline: I'm sure that there will be many more new supertalls too -
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Dec 2, 2007 2:31:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Dec 2, 2007 14:21:27 GMT -5
It's nice, but that yellow on the side is pretty gnarly....
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on Dec 2, 2007 18:13:16 GMT -5
I have to say I agree with the NIMBYs on this one - shouldn't the big buildings stay in Manhattan?
|
|
Ebola
Full Member
mmm... skyscraper, i love you
Posts: 211
|
Post by Ebola on Dec 2, 2007 22:23:21 GMT -5
What's the logic? NY's skyline already extends in every direction, even New Jersey. There's nothing good coming out of preventing tall buildings from being built outside of Manhattan Island and if you can find any viable logic in it then you can inject me with an AIDS needle.
It's good see each part of NYC develope into its own city and have its own "downtown" with its largest buildings. NYC is basically five cities in one. There are plans for two 22-story, 350'+, thin twin towers for downtown Staten Island, which faces lower Manhattan, so I hope they get built since SI is the only borough in NYC without high-rises.
|
|