Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:03 pm
by Linkin5
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Totally lame.
Totally.

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:28 pm
by Big E
Image

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:47 pm
by NovakOmaha
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Totally lame.
You're right about that, dude...pathetic as well.

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:33 pm
by cdub
Wow, that was an interesting read.  

First, the building doesnt even look like it could be real.  And, yes, kind of ugly either way.  

Second, I'll stand on the side that is NOT sad that Omaha lacks a bunch of supertall stuff.  I suppose if we can create stuff that isnt here to fill them I might change my mind, otherwise, I'd take a few blocks of development over one really tall one.

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:52 am
by Linkin5
Looks like the Hudson Yards project will start pretty soon here.

Image

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:51 pm
by MadMartin8
Those totally fit in with the surrounding buildings and architecture.

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:57 pm
by GetUrban
MadMartin8 wrote:Those totally fit in with the surrounding buildings and architecture.
What, reflecting the neighboring buildings doesn't count as contextual-ism?

The cantilevered one is quite disconcerting...looks like it could topple any minute

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:55 pm
by Linkin5
GetUrban wrote:
MadMartin8 wrote:Those totally fit in with the surrounding buildings and architecture.
What, reflecting the neighboring buildings doesn't count as contextual-ism?

The cantilevered one is quite disconcerting...looks like it could topple any minute
Kohn Pedersen Fox is the architect, I guarantee you everything will be fine structurally if built.

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:05 pm
by MadMartin8
GetUrban wrote:
MadMartin8 wrote:Those totally fit in with the surrounding buildings and architecture.
What, reflecting the neighboring buildings doesn't count as contextual-ism?

The cantilevered one is quite disconcerting...looks like it could topple any minute
I think it's perfect. It allows the small peons in the surrounding areas to have their lives reflect back to them in 1,000+ foot glory! :lol:

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:08 pm
by skinzfan23

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:16 pm
by nativeomahan
skinzfan23 wrote:We need a few of these here:

Image

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/04/real_es ... l?iid=Lead
Will never, ever happen.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:23 pm
by Linkin5
432 park ave is pretty close to topped out.

Image

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:31 pm
by Linkin5
Tower Verre just got the green light and has now started U/C, it is AMAZING looking. That brings NYC to 8 supertalls U/C right now.

Here's a pic of Tower Verre:

Image

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:17 pm
by Collin
Nice find. I hadn't heard of this one. 53W53 (Tower Verre) Looks so awesome!!

Image
Image
Image
Image

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:51 am
by PotatoeEatsFish
The towers would be better if they didn't look 10 feet wide. :/

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:34 am
by nativeomahan
PotatoeEatsFish wrote:The towers would be better if they didn't look 10 feet wide. :/
It is my understanding that this was a condition of their approval. They aren't allowed to cast shadows on parks or other locations for more than a short time.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:15 am
by MTO
Which is still soo New York, as condensed as that city is in a hundred years even their 1k-ers will be wall-mates just like their legacy stock. Keeping them uber narrow will allow for more stupid talls per block..

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:49 pm
by Linkin5
nativeomahan wrote:
PotatoeEatsFish wrote:The towers would be better if they didn't look 10 feet wide. :/
It is my understanding that this was a condition of their approval. They aren't allowed to cast shadows on parks or other locations for more than a short time.
It's because the lots are so small. The thing about shadows being cast on Central Park was a complaint a very few had and a media source ran with it.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:51 pm
by iamjacobm
Brooklyn about to get their first supertall? The tallest in the borough currently is 610 ft. This beast would break 1000.

Image

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:42 am
by RNcyanide
Reminds me of 800 Grand in DSM.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:51 am
by PotatoeEatsFish
New York is building a skyscraper that's not ugly :o

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:27 am
by BRoss
RNcyanide wrote:Reminds me of 800 Grand in DSM.
801 Grand

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:11 am
by RNcyanide
HR Paperstacks wrote:
RNcyanide wrote:Reminds me of 800 Grand in DSM.
801 Grand
LOL thanks.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:16 pm
by RockHarbor
The newest buildings really are cool in NYC. I actually spent a lot of time in NYC/NJ last July-Sept. I was there several times. I was thinking of moving there (part of the reason was because I've always wondered what it was like living there, and I'm getting older. Another reason was I was so tired of my "Omaha Development Obsession", and I kinda wanted to get away from it...) But, I really appreciate things about Omaha now, including wide straight streets and plenty of parking. I took tons of pictures, and I learned a lot about the city. My whole life, I've been a bit intimidated of that town. So, I went, and explored... It really isn't as "big & bad" as I always thought it was, but it is a huge city. Besides passing through Newark's airport in 1998, and a quick 2-day visit to the city in 1999 (where I went up in the WTC towers), I hadn't really spent any time there. Most of my view of NYC was from movies. So, I totally think of that city and NJ differently now.

I also quickly visited historic Providence, beautiful Newport, and beautiful Boston, which I love. I also saw historic Philadelphia and Wilmington and Washington DC. There really is so much loveliness back East. The thing is about the Eastern cities (like Boston, for example), is that they have beautiful city centers, and great urban cores, but there's not any real defined area of new suburban housing. Growing up in Omaha, I'm so used to an area of town with a mass of new housing out west (and, of course, all the Midwest and Western major cities are pretty much like that, with a newer edge). I like that aspect of cities. I don't like when everything seems mostly really old from downtown way out to the furthest reaches of suburbia. I like that "boom town" feeling, and I want a break from the "older stuff" sometimes.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:37 pm
by RockHarbor
That Hudson project and Tower Verre is amazing. Only NYC (and maybe Chicago) could pull that off so well...

Although the Nordstrom Tower is mentioned here, I didn't read or learn about it here. Yesterday, doing some quick research on the Freedom Tower, I learned of it, and I came across this article that talks about it being planned now slightly higher than the Freedom Tower -- not slightly shorter, like it was planned before.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next ... 180955238/

Re:

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:43 pm
by RockHarbor
skinzfan23 wrote:I think the New York building is pretty ugly.  It reminds me of the US Bank Tower in Milwaukee that was built in 1973, you would think that they would choose something more modern looking.
Image
See, I like Milwaukee's tallest building. It celebrates simple & basic & conventional geometry. I love those satisfying patterns of X-bracing repeated. In fact, locals objected to that upper company sign, because it partially shrouded the X-bracing feature, and took away from the architectural beauty of the building.

I'm a fan of simple rectangular & square buildings in general. There's a timeless beauty to simple & basic geometry to me. It's almost like...walking into a white, minimalist room (which doesn't suit everyone's taste, but it does mine).

This 432 Park Ave did take me back a bit, but I do like it in NYC. Only NYC could "pull that off" out of the American cities, imo. NYC has that comic book-ish (i.e. "Metropolis" or "Gotham City") aspect, and is a very extreme & eccentric city, so tall skinny pinnacles sticking up somehow work there, imo -- even more than Chicago.

I'm not usually a fan of buildings that are too tall & skinny, almost looking "stickish." However, I totally "get" the mindset behind this 432 Park Avenue building, I feel. Here you have this perfectly square building, with a perfect pattern of square windows up each side. That shows us what? It is meant to celebrate & feature the basic & beautiful square (imo). You have that ultra-common square element, but then the tower shoots way, way high in the sky. It is strangely exhilarating to me. The skinniness mixed with that lofty height almost makes me have butterflies in my stomach -- like when I'm holding onto a kite on a windy day. It's like basic, simple geometry in one way, but extreme, unconventional geometry in another way... I don't know if I could sleep well in that building, especially living at the top.

I took plenty of pictures of that in my trips to NYC. I should share some on this board. Here's one where you can see it:

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:57 pm
by bmt
Not sure if this is even feasible, but it is an interesting concept.

Image

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:59 pm
by Linkin5
That may be the ugliest building I've ever seen.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:50 pm
by daveoma
I think it looks AWESOME.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:48 am
by RNcyanide
Who wouldn't want to live inside the world's largest paperclip??

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:16 pm
by nebugeater
Looks like a matchbox car track to me

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:50 pm
by RNcyanide
It just needs a desert dome on each side of it and then it'd be PERFECT.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:22 pm
by nebugeater
RNcyanide wrote:It just needs a desert dome on each side of it and then it'd be PERFECT.
I see what you did there!

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:22 am
by daveoma
RNcyanide wrote:It just needs a desert dome on each side of it and then it'd be PERFECT.
:lol:

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:57 am
by Coyote
RNcyanide wrote:It just needs a desert dome on each side of it and then it'd be PERFECT.
I'm not touching that.

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:55 am
by MadMartin8
RNcyanide wrote:It just needs a desert dome on each side of it and then it'd be PERFECT.
This took me longer than I want to admit to get.

Nicely done

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:09 am
by RNcyanide
Coyote wrote:
RNcyanide wrote:It just needs a desert dome on each side of it and then it'd be PERFECT.
I'm not touching that.
No judgement if you do :lol:

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:40 pm
by nebraska
Long tower is long, but the paperclip tower is soooooooo last week.

Now we'll just make reallllllllly long skyscrapers and dangle them from asteroids. Take that NYC!

http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER
Image

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:34 pm
by GetUrban
The commute to work would be a pain if you didn't work in the building....you'd have to time your parachute jump off the building while it moves 750 mph. Not sure how you would get back home, among other problems.

A stationary 30-40 story version anchored to the ground would be cool though.

http://www.archdaily.com/868226/the-rea ... r-proposal

Re: NYC Supertall Boom

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:01 pm
by iamjacobm
https://www.6sqft.com/demolition-permit ... rk-avenue/
Demolition permits were filed Tuesday for the JPMorgan Chase HQ at 270 Park Avenue, CityRealty reports. The building will be the tallest planned demolition in history. The filing is a significant step for the bank on the way to replacing the 1.5-million-square-foot Modernist tower previously known as the Union Carbide Building with a 2.5-million-square-foot skyscraper, to be designed by British Pritzker Prize winner Norman Foster/Foster + Partners architectural firm.

The demolition of the 52-floor, 707-foot building will be the largest intentional demolition in history
The new tower that will rise is headed for at least 1,400 feet, with 70 floors that will hold 6,000 JPMorgan Chase employees, making the new headquarters one of the tallest buildings in the city and the tallest office building by roof height.