Brookfield Towers (bet. 9th and 10th & 31st and 33rd)

[krulltime]

Anyone has heard more news about this? The building is going to be built by Brookfield Properties. It is going to be a 2.5 million-square-foot tower!!!! :D

I read it on Crains!!! On an article about the West Side.

This is part of the article:

Grander plans

Some major developers that already own sites in the area are using the recent proposed zoning changes to firm up their plans. Brookfield Properties, which planned to construct a 2 million-square-foot office building at 401 W. 31st St., between Ninth and 10th avenues, is expanding the project to a 2.5 million-square-foot tower featuring both offices and residences.

"There's more flexibility for the use, which brings us back to the drawing board," says Dennis Friedrich, Brookfield's president and chief operating officer.

I hope this is true!!!

P.S. I have been in school and work alot so that is why I haven't been around much if anyone is interested to know :wink:

[Gulcrapek]

I think this is the mythical Ninth Avenue Tower. Not sure. But cool anyway.

[NewYorkYankee]

I wish it would be built! We missed you Krull! :D

[Stern]

Ive seen renderings of the "Ninth Avenue Tower" its a dated po-mo design by the po-master's KPF. It only topped 750 feet.

Not to get too excited about the news, it sounds years away, but the larger mixed use program is fantastic news. True, Brookfield doesn’t hold a light to the ambitious, previous incarnation of Olympia and York, but the program and building envelope almost guarantees a tall building. The less of a commercial presence the better, Bloomberg Tower for example had less bulk and more height in its earliest stages, once Bloomberg signed on for more space the entire program changed to accommodate larger floor plates. Given the current market I doubt Brookfield will build more than 1 million square feet of offices, and that leaves us with a substantial amount of residential space, the residential program alone dictates less bulk, and as an added incentive the height factor plays a role in marketing these luxury apartments.

[Stern]

But not to get my hopes up the project could also be developed like One World Wide Plaza was and not top 800 feet. :(

[kliq6]

Height is not important in building, keeping firms and retaining jobs are key, the west side in my opinion should be more office space less apartments, why build more towers for rich people.

You guys on this site have to realize that the commercial future of NYC is more important then building tall buildings that wont help the economy.

My last post on this site

[Stern]

My last post on this site

Good riddance. I’m not going to say that anyone who can’t see the relation between a skyscraper and its image is an idiot, but they’re not very smart. Height not only shows the power of a multinational corporation but it has a symbolic meaning as the skyscraper has a role in creating and reflecting cultural trends, especially when put into context, the city.

Tall building are used to capture the public’s attention and curry favor with public opinion, in-turn inviting other firms to follow suit, reminding us that the city is active and vibrant, and causing a catalysts for further development.

Your request for corporate clones is not in touch with the current culture trend. The forms and height which you see around the world today is in response to the austere econo-buildings of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. But that doesn’t change anything, the factor behind skyscrapers is still economics, but for a company eager to capture the public’s attention they must use the skyscraper as a powerful advertising instrument. They must look beyond containers for employees, that while large, rendered their respective cities indistinguishable and depriving them of their identity. Tall building and architecturally significant buildings restore an identity to the city through there image and create long reciprocating effects.

Here’s some facts for you to mull over:

The Citicorp Center not only resulted in increasing the buildings real-estate value, Citicorp was able to rent the building at a premium 20% more than other buildings, as such Citicorp never moved in themselves, it however created for them a company hallmark. Following its completion thousands of leaflets and advertisements were distributed with the Citicorp Center on it, its completion created a real stir.

BOFA Tower which will be the second tallest building in Manhattan will have the highest rents on an avenue that used to house strip-joints, tenements, pan-handlers, prostitutes, and for which still holds a negative stigma.

In 1976 when Pennzoil Place was completed in Houston it created an image of success for Pennzoil, which caused a documented significant increase in applications for employment after the skyscrapers construction. But more importantly for Houston Pennzoil established an image, it was an image of a corporation in stark contrast to its surroundings , it was a very important point in Houston’s history, not long after its completion the city experienced a boom in tall and post-modern building, each confusing distinctiveness with recognizability, but bringing in corporations, populations, and the positive effects dwindling down to everything associated with revitalization and people’s high regard for their city, culture, arts, lowered crime, etc. etc.

[Stern]

And while I don’t have any tangible evidence to prove that tall buildings have a greater positive effect on the city, just look at Houston, Shanghi, Dubai, etc. etc. You can even look to this forum itself as further proof that tall buildings capture a publics attention and interest in the city itself.

[krulltime]

Height is not important in building, keeping firms and retaining jobs are key, the west side in my opinion should be more office space less apartments, why build more towers for rich people.

You guys on this site have to realize that the commercial future of NYC is more important then building tall buildings that wont help the economy.

My last post on this site

Your question of why built more towers for rich people is sort of dumb. I dont want to be an advocate for the rich, but I feel that the rich contribute alot for the city. I think that they are very important NYC citizens and they make the city what it is today. Ironically It attracts people from all over the world and it attracts other middle class and tourists which benefits the city.

I think the poor in the city have it better off than other poor people in other USA cities. There are more jobs, better city schools, less crime and more benefits, etc. These all are services from taxing our rich in the city. Not the ones from the suburbs. Just look at other cities like Philadelphia, most of the rich live in the suburbs. That doesnt benfit the poor in the city at all. There is more crime, there are worst schools, and less jobs. If there are no rich people in the city than look at camden.

So I think that this city should built more towers for the rich.

The more rich people choose to live in the city as oppose to the suburbs then more taxes for them and more benefits for NYC poor and middle class. Amen. :)

Do you guys think it makes sense? What do you think?

[Gulcrapek]

I do to an extent, but it emphasizes the problem of housing for the lower and middle class.

[TonyO]

I think that building for whomever inhabits the space is good for NY. Many developers take advantage of 80/20 financing. One of the things that makes NY great is that you are surrounded by people who really want to be here.

[NewYorkYankee]

I agree Tonyo.

[BrooklynRider]

First, I don't understand the big huff of Kliq6. Your contributions here are appreciated, but why the stomping off over disagreement?

As for the "obsession" with skyscrapers, lack of land and growing population must be addressed by increased density. That in itself dictates building upward - not outward. I can't say I am overjoyed by the endless creation of luxury high-rise residences. Even 80/20 buildings still force low income people into a "lottery" to get a home. Never-the-less, we have 80% new units for upper-middle class and outright filthy rich and 20% new uniys for low income. The missing piece remains middle income housing. The sad and frustrating aspect of it is the range that "middle income falls into" for an individual it can be $30K to $125K. For a family or couple it can be $50K to $150K. There is just nothing being built that is "affordable". You either need an excessive amount down or to commit yourself to being rent (or in this case "mortgage") poor.

It is a colossal failure of city and state governmets not to create guideline and incentives for this kind of housing as neighborhood after neighborhood gets rezoned. "Affordable Housing" needs a standardized definition as does "Low Income" and "Middle Class". Claims are thrown around and, in effect, we have truthless advertising.

How off topic am I?

[billyblancoNYC]

First, I don't understand the big huff of Kliq6. Your contributions here are appreciated, but why the stomping off over disagreement?

As for the "obsession" with skyscrapers, lack of land and growing population must be addressed by increased density. That in itself dictates building upward - not outward. I can't say I am overjoyed by the endless creation of luxury high-rise residences. Even 80/20 buildings still force low income people into a "lottery" to get a home. Never-the-less, we have 80% new units for upper-middle class and outright filthy rich and 20% new uniys for low income. The missing piece remains middle income housing. The sad and frustrating aspect of it is the range that "middle income falls into" for an individual it can be $30K to $125K. For a family or couple it can be $50K to $150K. There is just nothing being built that is "affordable". You either need an excessive amount down or to commit yourself to being rent (or in this case "mortgage") poor.

It is a colossal failure of city and state governmets not to create guideline and incentives for this kind of housing as neighborhood after neighborhood gets rezoned. "Affordable Housing" needs a standardized definition as does "Low Income" and "Middle Class". Claims are thrown around and, in effect, we have truthless advertising.

How off topic am I?

I agree to a certain extent. But at the same time, why do people have to live in the center of Manhattan if they can't afford it. Go buy a house in the "outer broughs" and not worry about high rents and increases. This is what is happening now. Sure, it's still on the high end, but I can show you a great number of below $250K condos/co-ops. Buy them! Be smart, be secure. The city is safe and waves of gentirification all but ensure (almost) that a smart move will pay off in the end. People do not NEED to live in midtown Manhattan.

[NewYorkYankee]

Anyone should be able to live in Midtown, no matter there financial situation. Midtown isnt only for upper class. Why should poorer people be designated to the outter boroughs?

[Deimos]

The law of supply and demand says that. Midtown is in high demand, so the price increases accordingly. If the city allows enough apartments to be built to offset the high demand, then prices will finaly stabilize, or even drop a little. The only way to do that is to develop the underdeveloped regions, or to increase the density of the developed areas.

[billyblancoNYC]

The law of supply and demand says that. Midtown is in high demand, so the price increases accordingly. If the city allows enough apartments to be built to offset the high demand, then prices will finaly stabilize, or even drop a little. The only way to do that is to develop the underdeveloped regions, or to increase the density of the developed areas.

Exactly. The supply in NYC is too low. Costs are too high. There are too many rent stabilized and controlled units. It artificially inflates rents. Unions their hands in too many pots in NYC. There was a story the other day, it costs about $150 per sq. ft. to build in NYC v. about $110 everywhere else. This needs to be dealt with, too.

Build more, allow more comp, and prices will go down.

As far as why shouldn't everyone be able to live in Midtown Manhattan...this isn't China. It's America. I can't live on Park Ave...oh well. Maybe one day I will be able to. I can't even get into this one. Too crazy to address, really. Sorry, I'm not being nasty, I just think it's a crazy thought.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Anyone should be able to live in Midtown, no matter there financial situation. Midtown isnt only for upper class. Why should poorer people be designated to the outter boroughs?

That's a noble thought, but you're going to have to explain a few things.

First of all, are you just limiting yourself to Midtown, or do you mean anywhere in the city. If you can't afford Midtown, there are many places in the outer boroughs you can't afford either. Try living in Malba.

Why do you say people are being designated to the outer boroughs? Do you regard it as a banishment? I'll make an educated guess that the majority of people in the outer boroughs don't want to live in Manhattan.

Finally, how do you propose we accomplish this plan for equal access to Midtown?

[NewYorkYankee]

1. No, I mean anywhere that is stated to be a "Rich" area. If you would like to live in a certain area I believe you should.

2. The term designated comes by people thinking (No one in paticular) that Manhattan is only for the rich, and the outter boroughs are "poorer areas". I understand Zippy that this is not true. (D'town BK, Malba etc) That is a good guess as well, people choose where they what to live. If a person lives in East NY and wants to live in BK heights, he should. I dont regard it as banishment either, I love some areas in the outter boroughs.

3.I think more affordable housing needs to be built.

[billyblancoNYC]

1. No, I mean anywhere that is stated to be a "Rich" area. If you would like to live in a certain area I believe you should.

2. The term designated comes by people thinking (No one in paticular) that Manhattan is only for the rich, and the outter boroughs are "poorer areas". I understand Zippy that this is not true. (D'town BK, Malba etc) That is a good guess as well, people choose where they what to live. If a person lives in East NY and wants to live in BK heights, he should. I dont regard it as banishment either, I love some areas in the outter boroughs.

3.I think more affordable housing needs to be built.

Now, what do you mean by "he should." No one says you can't live here or there, and areas aren't designated as "rich" but when people come to an area with money and prices are high, that eliminates people. That's life, really. Why would someone that can't afford a brownstone in BK be ENTITLED to live in one? I'm not sure if I follow.

As far as outer borough banishment, keep in mind, for one reason or another, there are over 6.5 million people in NYC that do not live in
Manhattan. I for one, love Manhattan, could afford to live there, but get so much more for my money 20 min away in Queens. It's not a banishment (and I'm not saying that you said it was either).

More affordable housing should be built, and more for MIDDLE INCOME and for ARTISTS as well. Build in cheaper areas...build them up and make housing for people, too. While nice, I don't begrudge a developer paying $50 million for a plot of land trying to get the most money for his dollar. We all can't live on Park Ave.

[NewYorkYankee]

No one is entitled to anything in life. I just think that if someone has a dream of living somewhere he or she may not be able to afford should. Its just me really, I like the affordable housing plan. Its just my opinion.

I agree Billy, you DO get more in the other boroughs, some places are NICER even.

[Deimos]

One thing confuses me... what exactly is "affordable" housing? Is there a particular style of apartment, or density of people? I know in simcity 4, when the "value" of a building goes down, the maximum number of occupants in that building goes up. Is this a factor in reality too? Or is affordable housing simply housing that someone who doesn't earn 6+ figures can afford to live in?

[Eugenius]

Anyone should be able to live in Midtown, no matter there financial situation. Midtown isnt only for upper class. Why should poorer people be designated to the outter boroughs?
That is the view that drives me up the wall. I happen to fall square in the upper middle class. With my income, I would be able to afford a really nice apartment in the hippest neighborhood in just about any american city. In New York, however, I cannot even afford to buy a smallish studio in one of the newer luxury developments.

The question begs itself: what has a poor person done to deserve living in an apartment that I can't afford?

If I can't afford an apartment in a certain area of the city, I look for an apartment elsewhere. I do NOT lobby to have a class of affordable apartments created especially for me, and granted to me by administrative fiat.

I say, the hell with 80/20! Let's encourage developers to build so many luxury apartments that they create a glut in the market, and I can finally afford one!

[Eugenius]

One thing confuses me... what exactly is "affordable" housing? Is there a particular style of apartment, or density of people? I know in simcity 4, when the "value" of a building goes down, the maximum number of occupants in that building goes up. Is this a factor in reality too? Or is affordable housing simply housing that someone who doesn't earn 6+ figures can afford to live in?
The term "affordable housing" as it has frequently been applied in the case of the 80/20 program is that the developer is obligated to rent out 20% of the newly constructed apartments at artificially low rates. By law, the apartments cannot be different in any way from the market-rate ones, and have to be dispersed throughout the building.

In exchange for dedicating 20% of their apartments as "affordable housing," the developer receives construction financing from the city at extremely favorable rates (imagine a 30-year mortgage with a 2% interest rate).

In effect, the taxpayers of the city of New York (those same people paying the market rates) are subsidizing the cheap loans, and by extension, the affordable housing.

[NewYorkYankee]

I just think anyone who likes a certain neighborhood should be able to live there. Someone from Astoria who likes Midtown should be able to move there. Someone from Inwood should be able to move to College Point. JMO though.

[ZippyTheChimp]

There is a reason that, unlike the other two, it is worded the pursuit of happiness.

[krulltime]

Ok going back to this project.... I cant quite picture the site. Is this going to be on top of the rail yards? between 9th and 10th? :?

If it is, then that will be super cool!!! Something has to be built on top of those yards and is about time!!!

[ZippyTheChimp]

It's not over the railyards.

North side of W 31st St, between 9th Ave and the Lincoln Tunnel access ramp. Close to 9th Ave - map shows 400 block starts on 9th. The Farley PO building is to the east across 9th Ave.

[Derek2k3]

Most of the site is over railyards.
Old statement from Brookfield...

http://www.brookfieldus.com

With the magnificent Farley Post Office building near Madison Square Garden soon to be redeveloped as the Amtrak portion of Pennsylvania Station, the surrounding neighborhood is poised to become one of Manhattans hottest commercial redevelopment spots.

Brookfield is planning a 2.5 million square foot commercial building to be located at the southwest corner of Ninth Avenue and West 31st Street. The 130,000 square foot site, one of midtown Manhattans largest vacant parcels, is situated immediately across the street from the Farley Post Office building, one block away from Madison Square Garden and the existing Pennsylvania Station.

Brookfield is currently preparing the architectural and engineering materials to apply for a decking permit over the existing 100,000 square foot below-grade railroad yard. It is expected that the permits and upzoning will be obtained by December 31, 2002, and that a building will be ready for occupancy by June 30, 2005.

[kliq6]

I must apoligize, someone else posted under my name and said i would be not writing anymore. I am still in favor of more commercial space over residential on the West Side based on the fact NYC is loosing jobs left and right but have no control over what permits are given out.

[Stern]

Yea. I was perplexed because in addition to your stated core belief, you have posted in other threads like One New York Place, which has little to offer other than views, and have been an advocate of height too.

[Gulcrapek]

So, sorry to be repetitive, but is this the NAT?

[krulltime]

Breaking News!!!

I just saw on channel WNBC about a tower that is going to be built on this site!!!

Its name (If I am correct) was 'International Broadcast Center'

They didnt say much about who is building it or the architect but I saw a glassy rendering of an interesting design.

It was really cool to see it! I was just surfing channels...

Anyone else saw the news?

[Gulcrapek]

No, but you must now devote your life to finding that rendering. Journey, boy.

[macreator]

Is this the same International Broadcast Center that appears in the 2012 Olympic plans?

[Stern]

Did the building look like this?

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/41502592/large.jpg

Of course its at the wrong location, right street, it will be a block in front of the squat brown Daily News Building.

[macreator]

If it is the same Olypmic related Broadcast building then I would assume Brookfield is waiting on seeing if the stadium will indeed be built and then if the Olympics will be coming to NYC as they would then be better able to gauge what kind of an office demand will come to the area.

[krulltime]

Stern! Yes it is! Oh my fault I guess, I never saw this picture before.

You are right it is one block west of 'the Brookfield Tower at 401 W. 31st Street'

But I saw more rendering of this 'International Broadcast Center', they had another image looking North...

So I guess there are going to be 2 towers on 31 street... I hope.

Anyway... the story was that the city have said that the tower will be built as part of the development and so the MTA havent considered this tower as part of the development on the yards. That is all the news I heard when I flip to the channel.

Sorry... No new news I guess...

[NYguy]

Here's an older look at that design...

http://www.newyorkgames.org/files/images/vibc.jpg

[Kolbster]

That is a greate building. And back to what Stern and Kliq have been saying, Height is always the plus, it also comes to symbolize a city too, not only the corporate wealth, but look at the iconsthat the twin towers were for us, and when they were that big, they symbolized America and American capitalism, thats why it was targeted.

--I hope im not being ignorant and redundant by repeating what someone has previously posted...it's a little bit late and i jsut got back and wanted to check the forum

[kliq6]

This may be were Goldman wants to build

[pianoman11686]

Developers Are Poised for Projects in Midtown

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: November 2, 2006

Brookfield Financial Properties bought a development parcel on Ninth Avenue last week for well over $100 million in the latest sign, developers say, that the market is finally ripe for building new office towers in Midtown.

For two decades, Brookfield has owned an adjacent site, across Ninth Avenue from the Farley Post Office building, between 31st and 33rd Streets, but was unable to lure a corporate tenant that far west during real estate booms in the 1980s and the late 1990s.

Now, with rents soaring and few large blocks of space available in Midtown, Brookfield, one of the largest commercial landlords in the city, decided that the time was right to acquire the adjacent parcel from Harvey Schulweis to build two, or possibly three, office towers. Combined, the properties cover five acres, about the size of Bryant Park. Under the current zoning, the company could build up to 4.6 million square feet of space, the equivalent of two Empire State Buildings.

In addition, SJP Properties, Vornado Realty Trust and Boston Properties are considering new commercial towers on the West Side after a six-year lull in office development.

“I’m extremely bullish,” said Josh Kuriloff, an executive vice president at Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial broker. “There is a window to build new office buildings on spec and be enormously successful as rents continue to spike. Financial institutions and global law firms will pay a premium for high-end space.”

According to Cushman & Wakefield, the vacancy rate for prime Midtown office space has fallen to its lowest point since 2000, 4.8 percent, while the average annual rent has climbed to more than $60 per square foot.

And two buildings that are already under construction, including the headquarters for The New York Times, have leased nearly all their space at rents that were unthinkable two years ago. The developer Douglas Durst and the Bank of America are building a 54-story, 2.1 million-square-foot tower at 42nd Street and Avenue of the Americas, where a law firm recently signed a deal for $100 per square foot.

So far this year, 31 companies have signed deals with rents of $100 or more per square foot, which is about what a developer needs today to justify building a new tower.

So unlike Mr. Durst, who started his project with an anchor tenant, SJP Properties plans to break ground soon on a 40-story, 1.1 million-square-foot office tower at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue without a tenant.

“This is the first time in 25 years that we’ve seen the Midtown market this strong for Class A office space,” Steven J. Pozycki, SJP’s chairman, said when the company bought the land in August for $305 million.

Across Eighth Avenue from SJP’s site, Vornado Realty Trust and Lawrence Ruben Company recently revived talks with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to build a 1.3 million-square-foot office tower over the north wing of the bus terminal. The developers agreed in 1999 to pay the Port Authority more than $110 million for the development rights, and there were talks about building a headquarters for Cisco Systems. But the dot-com boom collapsed in 2000, along with the chances of landing a tenant.

Since then, the two sides have been in litigation, though they now seem eager to get the project moving again.

Vornado also owns another potential development site, the Pennsylvania Hotel, across Seventh Avenue from Madison Square Garden.

Related Companies and Boston Properties are putting together a commercial development site on the east side of Eighth Avenue at 45th Street, according to real estate executives, that would involve using air rights from nearby Broadway theaters.

But it can take years to obtain government approvals and erect a tower. The New York market can be fast-moving and treacherous. In 2000, when the Midtown vacancy rate was 2.2 percent, the developer Jules Demchick planned a 17-story office building for the north side of 42nd Street near 12th Avenue. But New York soon plunged into a recession, and the vacancy rate jumped, although housing prices continued to rise.

Mr. Demchick, a shrewd builder, switched back to his original plan, a 49-story apartment tower, which is now nearing completion, by a different developer.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[pianoman11686]

9TH AVE. BLOCK A LOCK

BROOKFIELD'S BIG PLAN

By STEVE CUOZZO

November 2, 2006 -- Brookfield Properties, the real estate giant that owns the World Financial Center, plans a huge new office development across the street from the proposed Moynihan Station project, The Post has learned.

To do it, Brookfield plans to build a platform over an exposed Amtrak/New Jersey Transit rail yard between Ninth and Tenth avenues, even while the state and city dither over similar proposals for portions of the same yard farther west.

Brookfield is not waiting to see what happens with the Moynihan project. "They are actively marketing their site now, talking to major space users," a source said.

Last week, publicly traded Brookfield quietly completed an assemblage that gives it control of the entire West blockfront of Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets.

Brookfield has owned the portion above the rail yard since the mid-'90s. But it long coveted the blockfront's crucial northern corner, now a parking lot owned by Harvey Schulweiss.

A few days ago, Brookfield finally bought the lot at 400 W. 33rd St. for an unknown price. Calls to the company were not returned.

Brookfield's parcel is across the avenue from the Farley Post Office, where the Moynihan station and/or a new Madison Square Garden might one day rise.

A source said Brookfield "has a year of planning and negotiations ahead" before it can build.

But unlike at the rail yard between 11th and 12th avenues, where the Jets wanted to build a new sta dium and would have had to buy air rights from the MTA, most devel opment pro tocols at the Ninth Ave nue yard are in place.

Brookfield owns the air above the tracks. It has agreements with Amtrak regarding construction dating back to when the site was owned by Olympia & York, which built the WFC and whose U.S. assets Brookfield acquired in 1996.

Brookfield's assemblage takes up nearly two-thirds of the superblock between Ninth and Tenth avenues, where there is no 32nd Street. It can support 4.7 million rentable square feet under new zoning.

To build that much, Brookfield would have to buy air rights from nearby properties and provide certain public amenities.

With Midtown vacancies below 6 percent and demand strong, Brookfield is eager to get started. "They will not build on spec, but are considering a two-building or a three-building option depending on tenant interest," a source said.

With its recent purchase of competitor Trizec, Brookfield owns about 18 million square feet of office space in Manhattan.

steve.cuozzo@nypost.com

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

[kliq6]

this will be a great start to the westside development, id love to see something started in late 2007

[lofter1]

Extell seems to have started work on clearing a site they have for a residential project on the east side of 10th / 31st (Stuart Dean Building):

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=124670&postcount=1121

New DEMO (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=2&allisn=0001298039&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt) Permit for that site was issued on 10.31.06.

[macreator]

4.7 million square feet is insane! Even for a huge plot of land, I imagine we'll be guaranteed at least one supertall. Very good news...glad someone is finally decking over those yards.

[ablarc]

SJP Properties plans to break ground soon on a 40-story, 1.1 million-square-foot office tower at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue without a tenant.
It's about time. That lot's been a disgrace for decades.

[sfenn1117]

4.7 million square feet is insane! Even for a huge plot of land, I imagine we'll be guaranteed at least one supertall. Very good news...glad someone is finally decking over those yards.

It has a tremendous location. The city's biggest transportation hub just one block away, and possibly MSG moving across the street. Too bad it couldn't be rezoned for limitless potential. I fear we might end up with a couple 800 foot whales with huge trading floor bases....see Goldman Sachs.

They should re-map 32nd street. Then there would be less footprint.

[ablarc]

They should re-map 32nd street. Then there would be less footprint.
Good idea.

[antinimby]

We should consider ourselves lucky if we get even 800 ft.

I'm afraid Community Board 4 might want to whittle it down to 600 ft. and ask for a public plaza of some sort.

[investordude]

If I read the article correctly, don't they already have air rights? I understand they would negotiate with future tenants, but where does the government come into play on this aside from basic public safety reviews, etc. And even the worst anti-nimby can't argue for landmarking an open pit, I hope at least. So, what can community board do to lower the building heights unless they actually rezone the area again (fat chance).

My hope is the public amenities described in the article is retail space (preferably high end). I don't think a plaza makes any sense there, but they need to make sure its not a dark gloomy walk to transit at night.

[antinimby]

^ I think you meant NIMBY, right?
Leave my name out of this. :D

[pianoman11686]

Public amenity might include some kind of infrastructure for the 7 line, possibly a walkway to either Javits or Penn/MSG (just pure speculation on my part).

As for the space: I hardly think 600 feet, or even 800 feet, would do here. Unless of course, Brookfield just put up one massive building whose floorplates were literally two blocks long. Think of the WTC: Tower 2 is 2.4 million square feet, Tower 3 is 2 million square feet. Those buildings are more than suitable for large trading floors. Combined height of the two buildings is between 2400 and 2500 feet. Not too shabby, and not at all out of the question for this site, I feel, if Brookfield wants to maximize their square footage.

[macreator]

How about a remap of 32nd street, a public park square on one of the newly created "blocks" and stack the 4.7 million square feet into one incredible supertall called Gotham Spire....hey...one can dream, right? :D

[pianoman11686]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing two separate buildings of similar height, in close proximity to each other. With this news, I'm just starting to realize the potential of the Hudson Yards area. If Vornado/Related ever get their acts together with the Penn Station plan, that area could be the second largest concentration of height in all of Manhattan.

[investordude]

Yes, I mean to say NIMBY in my previous email.

[macreator]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing two separate buildings of similar height, in close proximity to each other. With this news, I'm just starting to realize the potential of the Hudson Yards area. If Vornado/Related ever get their acts together with the Penn Station plan, that area could be the second largest concentration of height in all of Manhattan.

I too am very optimistic for the area. If the Moynihan/MSG project and Penn Plaza revitalization ever get going, this area is really going to boom. Mix in a bit of residential and you've got a pretty promising district built literally out of nothing. You've got transit, you've got huge floorplates, and soon we'll have a 7 line extension. I'm really excited for what's to come.

I'm not sure when zoning/city planning kicks in, but in some of the Hudson Yards planning proposals the City had, I really liked the mix of park land they included that will hopefully make the area even more inviting.

[jp1]

a remapping of 32nd street would be completely pointless. it would dead-end at the west side of the postoffice/moynihan, and at the east side of the daily news building (which also runs from 31 to 33)...less than a full city block, from 9th, only 2/3rds of the way to 10th ave.
maps.google.com folks. use it. its easy

i like the supertall / park idea though... lets go with that : )

[lofter1]

Something really tall on that block to the west of Moynihan / Farley is definitely possible under the 2005 rezoning.

The Master Plan image seemingly shows a "re-mapping" of a pedestrian 32nd St. west of 9th Avenue (although it isn't shown as such on the Zoning Map).

A few visual reminders from City Planning on the 2005 re-zoning of Hudson Yards (pretend the stadium isn't there) ...

1) Master Plan
2) Zoning Map
3) Model (imagine some big buildings where MSG is now)

***

[LeCom]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing two separate buildings of similar height, in close proximity to each other. With this news, I'm just starting to realize the potential of the Hudson Yards area. If Vornado/Related ever get their acts together with the Penn Station plan, that area could be the second largest concentration of height in all of Manhattan.
Vornado's done their homwork. It's Silver that's holding things back.

[lofter1]

Specifics on the Zoning for these blocks (west side of 9th Avenue between 31st / 33rd Streets) can be found on pages 57 & 58 in this pdf doc:
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/hyards/hy_development_information.pdf

More on the Zoning / FAR for those blocks ...

***

[antinimby]

I think this answers the previous questions about why there is still a need to buy additional air rights.

According to this photo, there is only 2.5 msf allowed at the Brookfield site and to get the additional 2.2 msf (to make 4.7 msf), they would have to be transferred from another nearby site.

Makes more sense now.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57004223/original.jpg

[NYguy]

Vornado's done their homwork. It's Silver that's holding things back.

How so???

said Silver:“If it’s given a priority, it will come together, probably in the next four to six months. The deal is already together. When the developers came here to make a presentation, they gave me the full plan. That’s all they talked about. They laid it out right on that table with plastic models and everything.”

By June, he said, the private developers will agree to contribute some $700 million to $900 million to renovate Penn Station

No particular reason the developers couldn't have done that a couple of weeks ago. The politicians get a lot wrong, but when they get something right, they should get the credit also.

[NYguy]

Brookfield's assemblage takes up nearly two-thirds of the superblock between Ninth and Tenth avenues, where there is no 32nd Street. It can support 4.7 million rentable square feet under new zoning.


Another look at the location of Brookfield's development in the overall Westside redevelopment plan:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/69609940/original.jpg


This development would sandwich the Penn Station/MSG development in between
Vornado's planned 6 msf development...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/69609970/original.jpg

[debris]

A bit off topic, but that photo makes it crystal clear: the Garment District has got to go. Look at the fall-off in height when you move south of 40th street between 5th and 8th avenue. That's because of the garment restrictions and the manufacturing zoning on the mid-blocks between 34th and 39th. All of this to protect several thousand jobs that could be done at 1/10 the cost in China. Amazing. I'll bet there are more office workers in the Empire State Building than garment workers in all of Manhattan.

Seems like 8th avenue and the Penn Station area will provide the land for midtown expansion for this cycle, but looking ahead several decades, Midtown proper has to extend into the Garment District.

[macreator]

I'd rather develop railyards and empty lots before ruining one of NYC's last remaining manufacturing and merch. districts.

[lofter1]

The garment district is filled with fantastic buildings from the 20s & 30s that are being renovated / re-used for small companies / residential.

[Citytect]

Get rid of the garment district? What a sad thought, and not entirely far-fetched. NYC is becoming more and more homogeneous every year.

[TREPYE]

All of this to protect several thousand jobs that could be done at 1/10 the cost in China. Amazing.

What a sad comment.

I really hope that you are not from the USA. Cuz if you are it is a lamentable display of disregard for you fellow countrymen's livelihood and promotion of another country's economy. Let me ask you something, do you live in this country or are you vouching to get this job in China??

[posterboy]

i think his problem is a mere misconception of what the garment district is - it's not the sweatshop central it might have been, but rather it derives its economic and cultural importance from the presence of designers, showrooms, fashion schools, etc. (and of course there are a lot of great old structures in the area). last i checked what you get from china are knock-offs (albeit of increasing quality), not high fashion.

that said, a great way to guarantee the integrity of the greater area would be to land big luxury goods makers as anchor tenants for the brookfield site.

[stache]

I think we will always have a Garment District to some extent, to make samples and also one of a kind items like theatrical costumes.

[NYguy]

Combined, the Brookfield and Related/Vornado developments will hold more space than the WTC. It will be interesting to see if Brookfield or Related gets the jump on materializing their plans. Whoever begins first will have the upper hand.

[debris]

Yikes. Didn't mean to be so contraversial on a off-topic comment. All I meant to say was that the land is too valuable to be used as a manufacturing district, given its transportation assets. I think its demise is inevitable. After all, there used to be slaughterhouses where the UN is. If there's more money to be made from offices than garment showrooms, then eventually, some politicians will let it happen.

As for the jobs thing, I make no apologies. If we tried to preserve every job that exists in America, and had that policy hundred of years ago, then a lot of us would still be candlestick makers, horse buggy drivers, blacksmiths, etc. Point is, times change, and the vast majority of the US workforce is too educated to be wasting time producing undergarments. Would you want your kid trained to do something like that? No, you prepare them for fast-growing, knowledge-centered jobs, the kind that are in abundance in NYC and need office space (finance, RE, advertising, etc.). There are plenty of people in the world who can produce our clothes cheaply, and leave us to do more skilled work. The unemployment rate in NYC right now is very low, after all.

I find this topic interesting, but it doesn't belong in this thread. Perhaps a moderator can steer this over somewhere else?

Before I get hit with personal comments: yes, I'm American, I'm an economist (hence the bias), moderate politically, and both my grandmother (full-time) and mother (part-time high school) have worked in the Garment District on sewing machines. Yes, perhaps 30 years ago jobs like this supported working class NYC and helped my family move up in the world, etc. But Regent's scholarships helped a heck of a lot more. And if anything, these jobs should be helping people in rural Alabama move into the middle class, where the cost of living is cheap, not Manhattanites who can't live on a garment workers salary anyway.

[investordude]

I'm shocked at the protectionist sentiment here, since China's role in the world is an unqualified positive for New York's real estate market. Without China's help in keeping inflation and interest low, there wouldn't have even been a housing boom in the US in the past 5 years (certainly, our own federal deficit spending policies would have driven interest rates higher without their help in keeping them low).

Instead of pesonalizing things, read an economics textbook before you question someone's patriotism without understanding how the global economy works, since New York is very salient as a beneficiary of it. (maybe the midwest could have misgivings, but New York clearly is a winner on China).

Having said that, I don't see a lot of open space in the garment district that provides the kind of wide open opportunity that the rail yards do. They should be rezoned to permit alternative uses and the repurposing of existing interesting buildings, but that's already happenning anyway.

[kliq6]

Brookfield will go first as all of the related/Vornado work is mainly tied to MSG moving, which wont happen as long as Dolans are involved, as they wont move unless there tax free status stays

[NYguy]

Brookfield will go first as all of the related/Vornado work is mainly tied to MSG moving, which wont happen as long as Dolans are involved, as they wont move unless there tax free status stays

If I had to put money on it, I'd say MSG will get the break. Bloomberg has hinted that he would do what's best for the City (not that he'd be doing the Dolans a favor). Also, Bloomberg has been pushing hard for developments further on Manhattan's west side, and it would be a step in that direction. But I also think a new arena benefits MSG - tax break or not, so it could go either way.

[NYguy]

Things are getting pretty interesting on 33rd Street. Now that the WTC planning is behind us, eyes will now shift to the mega-developments on that block.

Brookfield Properties, the real estate giant that owns the World Financial Center, plans a huge new office development across the street from the proposed Moynihan Station project, The Post has learned.

Brookfield is not waiting to see what happens with the Moynihan project. "They are actively marketing their site now, talking to major space users," a source said.

A source said Brookfield "has a year of planning and negotiations ahead" before it can build.

Brookfield owns the air above the tracks. It has agreements with Amtrak regarding construction dating back to when the site was owned by Olympia & York, which built the WFC and whose U.S. assets Brookfield acquired in 1996.

Brookfield's assemblage takes up nearly two-thirds of the superblock between Ninth and Tenth avenues, where there is no 32nd Street. It can support 4.7 million rentable square feet under new zoning.

With Midtown vacancies below 6 percent and demand strong, Brookfield is eager to get started. "They will not build on spec, but are considering a two-building or a three-building option depending on tenant interest," a source said.

Those towers will be huge. So now the race is on between Brookfield and the Related/Vornado team to get huge office projects underway. It seems that Brookfield has the edge here but the Related/Vornado team has been marketing its plans to the business community as well. I'm pretty sure each team would like its development to be the new signature element of Midtown (like the WTC is for Downtown). We could have an Empire State vs. Chrysler-type situation in the works. But one thing is certain, both sides will have to work together on pedestrian circulation to and from the Penn Station hub.

[kliq6]

yes but the Vornado team want to waste a prime corner on 33rd and eighth for a condo. Brookfield is a more aggressive developer and gets things done quicker, it took Vornado 10 years to finally decide to do something about ALexanders

[NYguy]

Quote from an article in:
http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070114/SUB/70114016/1009/law

Eager developers grab land on far West Side
5 million square feet of housing going up; hotels, offices seen

By: Julie Satow
January 14, 2007

The development of 5 million square feet of housing, or nearly 40% of the total amount expected to be built there over the next three decades, is already under way. Nearly 1,000 hotel rooms are in the planning stages, and the construction of an office tower could begin later this year.

"I would expect that by the end of this year, there will be news of an office development at the Hudson Yards," says Daniel Doctoroff, deputy mayor of economic development.

One of the first office tower developments out of the gate is likely to be the Brookfield Properties project across from the James A. Farley Post Office. The company, which owns the World Financial Center, completed its acquisition of a big property on the west side of Ninth Avenue between West 31st and West 33rd streets late last year.

Brookfield has yet to secure a tenant or announce its plans. But some projects will go forward even without signed leases, says Eric Anton, a broker for Eastern Consolidated. "Developers are thinking of building speculative office buildings in the area," he says.

At least two major Manhattan tenants — Merrill Lynch and Viacom — are in the market for new office space. Mr. Doctoroff says that city officials have not spoken to Merrill about a possible move to Hudson Yards but have approached Viacom, which is looking for 1 million square feet.

[soccerUSA]

Is it possible that these towers will be 80+ and 90+ floors?

[antinimby]

It is possible but I doubt they'll be that tall.

They'll try to make 'em fat.

[posterboy]

i definitely have higher hopes for the msg site than for the brookfield site. quite literally.

[ramvid01]

It is possible but I doubt they'll be that tall.

They'll try to make 'em fat.

There all gonna be fat, just look at how society is to begin with. What hope to we have for our office towers. :rolleyes:

[kliq6]

Ninth Avenue
New York, New York Square Footage: 4,700,000

A super block along Ninth Avenue, Brookfield Properties' site extends from 31st to 33rd Street (there is no 32nd Street on this block) and comprises 4.7 million square feet of buildable density. Planning is underway for an office complex of three buildings and connecting public spaces, akin to Brookfield Properties' World Financial Center (New York), BCE Place (Toronto) or Bankers Hall (Calgary). A deck will be constructed over the railroad tracks which sit below-grade on a portion of the site.

Significant redevelopment is taking place in the neighborhood, including the expansion of the Jacob Javits Convention Center two blocks to the west and the redevelopment of the Farley Post Office directly across the street. The Farley building is being redeveloped as Moynihan Station, a new transportation facility which will enhance and extend Pennsylvania Station, New York City's most heavily-trafficked transit hub.

[NYguy]

NY Post

FOUR TOWERS NEAR FARLEY
BROOKFIELD STILL NEEDS ANCHOR

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/loisweiss_btb.jpg

March 14, 2007

BROOKFIELD Properties is readying plans for four towers totaling 4.7 million feet at the rear of the Farley Post Office on the west side of Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets.

"It will be an awesome location," Ric Clark, Brookfield's CEO, said at the Young Men's and Women's Real Estate Association luncheon yesterday.

Clark said plans call for the east end of the plot to host two office towers sharing 4 million square feet while the west end will have two residential towers totaling 700,000 feet.

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

While there's no anchor tenant yet, Clark said Brookfield is in discussions with "all the usual suspects" and expects rents to start in the $80 range.

Would they break ground without an anchor tenant? "Never say never," Clark said. "But we would need to know the Moynihan Train Station was going forward."

[kliq6]

If they wait for that station, they will miss this commercial sector boom as there will already be competion from the three new towers on Eighth ave that are starting this year. They sat on Site 26 for 15 years and BPC just took it from them and gave it to Goldman, so they better be careful

[SilentPandaesq]

^^
I always have problems with the sqft numbers. Is there a building that has a similar footprint with 1.6 mil that I could compare this too? The bank of America on 42nd is around 2 mil? On a bigger plot? I expect a helpful diagram. :)

[posterboy]

Hold on - 1.6 million for office tower one, 700,000 for both residential buildings combined ... and thus 2.4 million square feet for office tower number two?

BoA is 2.1 million, no? Sounds like this one has some potential, at least in height, if not in actual design.

[Derek2k3]

It's usually all downhill from here.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1217/744521275_b9cb08c13a_o.jpg
Go to the website and see a fuller rendering. KPF are the architects.
Advanced Media Design
http://www.studioamd.com/

[Derek2k3]

I just realized this isn't the Brookfield Site but the Sherwood Equities Site I proposal. I guess it could be moved here.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6235&page=2

Sherwood Equities somewhat updated their page on the tower. I counted around 72 floors plus the top.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1008/745576936_7ed1dac6be_o.jpg

[Stern]

I just realized this isn't the Brookfield Site but the Sherwood Equities Site I proposal. I guess it could be moved here.

Nice find there Derek. Instead of moving it to "Far West Side & Penn Station Area" I think this development deserves its own thread in Skyscrapers and Architecture.

[Derek2k3]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1110339269_957e9b8f40_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1309/1110339277_2a7394af06_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1088/1110339301_32f44c6efb_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/1110339349_b67eda77b2_o.jpg

[Derek2k3]

NBA Tower
400 West 33rd Street
31 stories 486 feet
Gwathmey Siegel & Associates
Never Built

Here is the NBA Tower proposal at the SW corner of 9th & 33rd, designed by Gwathmey Siegal. The project was last shelved in 2001. Though the NBA planned to consolidate all of its offices in NJ & NY here, the community board rejected the proposal for being out of scale with the neighborhood, casting too long of a shadow, and having a dark useless plaza. Brookfield bought this site last year from Harvey Schulweiss to add to their southern parcels. The towers Brookfield will build, will be far larger than these thanks to the rezoning...take that nimbys.

Older, 90's proposal for the same site...
http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/portfolio/proj_detail.php?job_id=198620


http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/images/portfolio/projects/198620/thumbs/8620_m02.jpg

http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/images/portfolio/projects/198620/thumbs/8620_m03.jpg


You also get a glimpse to the left of Olympia & York's 750', Ninth Avenue Tower, that was to be designed by KPF.

[sfenn1117]

The nimbys actually did something beneficial to the city for once.....that ugly thing was not built and a larger building can now go up.

[Stern]

Thank god that was not built, the tower behind it looks decent though.

[antinimby]

This, my friends, is a great example of a design with great massing versus one with a bad one.

Massing often times makes all the difference in the world.

http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/images/portfolio/projects/198620/thumbs/8620_m03.jpg

I'll readily take that tower by KPF as WTC #5 right now. Naturally of course, the nice one won't get built but we'll probably get a dud for #5.

[Stern]

The shorter building looks like a circa 1980's Helmut Jahn reject. I'll never understand why Gwatemy Siegel is so well-regarded.

[londonlawyer]

The shorter building looks like a circa 1980's Helmut Jahn reject. I'll never understand why Gwatemy Siegel is so well-regarded.

I agree. Have you seen how lousy 240 PAS turned out?

[antinimby]

I'll take your word for it. You tend to have low standards, so if you think it's lousy then it's definitely got to be. :D

[londonlawyer]

I'll take your word for it. You tend to have low standards, so if you think it's lousy then it's definitely got to be. :D

You should see my stds for women. I'll do anything!

[SilentPandaesq]

You should see my stds for women.

The life of a male street walker might sound exciting, but you end up spending all your money on body glitter and antibiotics.....

[BrooklynRider]

You should see my stds for women. I'll do anything!

stds = sexually transmitted diseases? :o

I guess we're all off topic. The lines of that KPF look beautiful, but materials will make or break it. Do you think it is just a place holder or a in tune with the forthcoming design?

[NYguy]

Brookfield's 4 tower placeholder can be seen here:

http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook2.jpg
curbed.com

[londonlawyer]

I hope that Brookfield persuades Merrill to anchor this project and to extend its lease at the WFC until this is ready. That would have the ancillary benefit of thwarting Vornado's plan to raze the Hotel Penn.

[NYguy]

That would have the ancillary benefit of thwarting Vornado's plan to raze the Hotel Penn.

NO, it would not. Vornado's plans for a tower is not a "Merrill Lynch" proposal. It's a site that's long been planned as the location of a 2msf (enlarged since then) office tower. Merrill Lynch was just the latest in a series of possible tenants. If they should decide to go elsewhere, it doesn't mean that tower is canceled, as it wouldn't for tower 3 at the WTC.

[scumonkey]

from todays curbed:
http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_2_westsidebrookfield.jpg

In a day filled with West Side development news (http://curbed.com/archives/2008/02/07/today_in_controversial_west_side_urban_planning.ph p), the biggest
piece of intel just hit the wire. Brookfield Properties,
the massive commercial landlord and one of the companies bidding (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/19/yardsmania_1_brookfield_properties_goes_splittsvil le.php)
on the Hudson Yards, has announced it will develop the other
West Side rail yards, right smack in between the Hudson Yards and
Penn Station. Bloomberg reports that Brookfield will start
constructing a platform over the rails in June, and three acres
and 5.4 million square feet of fresh new office and mixed-use
develop space will be created.
The $600 million project has been dubbed Manhattan West,
and the platform is expected to be completed in late 2010.
The first tower could be finished by 2013. The site runs from
31st to 33rd Streets, and Ninth Avenue to the Lincoln Tunnel
approach. Yardsmania!

[antinimby]

That's certainly good news that the project is moving forward although the only news here is that they'll start in June because the proposal has been known for sometime now.

It'll be interesting to see a large scale platform get built over a railyard. I don't think I've seen one go up before.

[londonlawyer]

Since Brookfield likely won't get selected for the Hudson Yards, it would be nice if they build the great 1,300 foot tower that was the centerpiece of their bid on this site.

[zinka]

Where are they getting the FAR to do this? The site is approx. 216,600 square feet by my calculation; to build 5.4 million square feet on it would be an FAR of 25. The zoning here is C6-4 (FAR 10, up to 12 with bonuses). How are they more than doubling the zoning?

[lofter1]

Work to Begin on Platform Over Tracks on the West Side

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21westside.html?ref=nyregion)
Charls V. Bagli
February 21, 2008

Despite a flagging economy, Brookfield Properties says it will start work in June on a $600 million platform over railroad tracks near Ninth Avenue, where it plans to build two towering office buildings.

Brookfield, a major commercial landlord in Manhattan, has owned the property between Ninth and Dyer Avenues, between 31st and 33rd Streets, for more than 22 years. But it has had difficulty luring a prominent company to what has long been regarded as Manhattan’s last real estate frontier.

The company now says the time is ripe to begin work. Development is pushing westward, and the site is only one block west of Pennsylvania Station. The vacancy rate for Manhattan office buildings is still relatively low, and the credit markets should recover fairly quickly from the subprime mortgage crisis, said Richard B. Clark, chief executive of Brookfield. “For a long time, we believed that the West Side would be the city’s next commercial zone,” Mr. Clark said. “It’s clear that the time is now to make something of this site.”

Brookfield’s project is no simple matter. More than half of the five-acre site is over railroad tracks, which extend from Pennsylvania Station to the West Side railyards. Brookfield must build a three-acre platform, while trains continue to run below, before it can start putting up its first building. It hopes to sign a major tenant during the two years the job is expected to take.

Brookfield’s architect, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has designed two towers, a 1.9-million-square-foot building at the northeast corner of the site and a 3.4-million-square-foot building at the southeast corner.

In many respects, the project is a warm-up for the West Side railyards, where five developers are competing for the development rights. At the railyards, between 10th and 12th Avenues, from 30th to 34th Streets, developers will have to build two 13-acre platforms, at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. They would then have the right to build 12 million square feet of high-rise office and residential buildings. Brookfield is one of the companies expected to submit a second round of bids to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Tuesday. But with concerns about the economy growing, many real estate executives and government officials worry that developers may reduce their offers.

Brookfield is not alone in pushing forward with new office projects. Even so, some real estate executives warn that some of those projects could be postponed, especially if the developer lacks an anchor tenant, and new buildings may not rise over the West Side railyards for years.

Over the past five years, developers have largely ignored office projects in favor of erecting lucrative residential towers, even though the destruction of the World Trade Center sharply reduced available office space. In that time, developers built only 16 commercial buildings with a total of 14.4 million square feet, according to the Real Estate Board of New York.

As companies expanded, space became tight and commercial rents soared, with many prime buildings now fetching more than $100 a square foot in annual rent. So developers are once again putting up office towers, some without an anchor tenant. There are four towers under construction, with a combined total of 6.7 million square feet, and another four towers with 11.3 million square feet planned.

SJP Properties is building a 1.1-million-square-foot tower at Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street. To the north, Boston Properties is excavating a site between 54th and 55th Streets for a 39-story, 1-million-square-foot building that is scheduled to be finished in 2010. A year from now, Boston Properties and its partner, Related Companies, plan to start a second tower, with 900,000 square feet, at Eighth Avenue between 45th and 46th Streets.

“We obviously continue to feel good about west Midtown,” said Robert E. Selsam, senior vice president of Boston Properties.

At the World Trade Center site, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is building the 2.6-million-square-foot Freedom Tower, and JPMorgan Chase has signed a deal to erect a 1.3-million-square-foot building nearby. And on Church Street, the developer Larry Silverstein is beginning work on what will be three 60-story skyscrapers with a total of 6.2 million square feet.

[antinimby]

Two office towers, one at 1.9 msf and another at a whopping 3.4 msf.

SOM (ugh) gets the nod.

Work to Begin on Platform Over Tracks on the West Side


By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: February 21, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21westside.html)

Despite a flagging economy, Brookfield Properties says it will start work in June on a $600 million platform over railroad tracks near Ninth Avenue, where it plans to build two towering office buildings.

Brookfield, a major commercial landlord in Manhattan, has owned the property between Ninth and Dyer Avenues, between 31st and 33rd Streets, for more than 22 years. But it has had difficulty luring a prominent company to what has long been regarded as Manhattan’s last real estate frontier.

The company now says the time is ripe to begin work. Development is pushing westward, and the site is only one block west of Pennsylvania Station. The vacancy rate for Manhattan office buildings is still relatively low, and the credit markets should recover fairly quickly from the subprime mortgage crisis, said Richard B. Clark, chief executive of Brookfield. “For a long time, we believed that the West Side would be the city’s next commercial zone,” Mr. Clark said. “It’s clear that the time is now to make something of this site.”

Brookfield’s project is no simple matter. More than half of the five-acre site is over railroad tracks, which extend from Pennsylvania Station to the West Side railyards. Brookfield must build a three-acre platform, while trains continue to run below, before it can start putting up its first building. It hopes to sign a major tenant during the two years the job is expected to take.

Brookfield’s architect, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has designed two towers, a 1.9-million-square-foot building at the northeast corner of the site and a 3.4-million-square-foot building at the southeast corner.

In many respects, the project is a warm-up for the West Side railyards, where five developers are competing for the development rights. At the railyards, between 10th and 12th Avenues, from 30th to 34th Streets, developers will have to build two 13-acre platforms, at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. They would then have the right to build 12 million square feet of high-rise office and residential buildings. Brookfield is one of the companies expected to submit a second round of bids to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Tuesday. But with concerns about the economy growing, many real estate executives and government officials worry that developers may reduce their offers.

Brookfield is not alone in pushing forward with new office projects. Even so, some real estate executives warn that some of those projects could be postponed, especially if the developer lacks an anchor tenant, and new buildings may not rise over the West Side railyards for years.

Over the past five years, developers have largely ignored office projects in favor of erecting lucrative residential towers, even though the destruction of the World Trade Center sharply reduced available office space. In that time, developers built only 16 commercial buildings with a total of 14.4 million square feet, according to the Real Estate Board of New York.

As companies expanded, space became tight and commercial rents soared, with many prime buildings now fetching more than $100 a square foot in annual rent. So developers are once again putting up office towers, some without an anchor tenant. There are four towers under construction, with a combined total of 6.7 million square feet, and another four towers with 11.3 million square feet planned.

SJP Properties is building a 1.1-million-square-foot tower at Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street. To the north, Boston Properties is excavating a site between 54th and 55th Streets for a 39-story, 1-million-square-foot building that is scheduled to be finished in 2010. A year from now, Boston Properties and its partner, Related Companies, plan to start a second tower, with 900,000 square feet, at Eighth Avenue between 45th and 46th Streets.

“We obviously continue to feel good about west Midtown,” said Robert E. Selsam, senior vice president of Boston Properties.

At the World Trade Center site, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is building the 2.6-million-square-foot Freedom Tower, and JPMorgan Chase has signed a deal to erect a 1.3-million-square-foot building nearby. And on Church Street, the developer Larry Silverstein is beginning work on what will be three 60-story skyscrapers with a total of 6.2 million square feet.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[ramvid01]

Massive square footage. The question is how tall will these buildings reach.

My guess is that the 1.9 million sqft one will reach about 950-1000 feet while the 3.4 mill somewhere in the 1300s.

[Scraperfannyc]

There is whole new wave of Manhattan office construction going on, and NYC will need it because companies are often looking to relocate to brand new buildings.

Bravo! Good news for NYC. With the WTC now in full swing, and many more millions of square feet being built in midtown, it will be fun to see what the final designs will look like. All this being done without needless destruction too!

[TREPYE]

Brookfield’s architect, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has designed two towers, a 1.9-million-square-foot building at the northeast corner of the site and a 3.4-million-square-foot building at the southeast corner.


Whyyy???:(:mad:

Now we gotta brace ourselves for the worst instead of anticipating a good design.:rolleyes:

[Skylimitone]

Something boring we haven't seen before.

[londonlawyer]

The renderings are posted in the Times article. The buildings look surprisingly nice.

[scumonkey]

The renderings are posted in the Times article. The buildings look surprisingly nice.????maybe I'm just blind but I didn't see them....can you post another link?!:confused:

[londonlawyer]

They're not included in the on-line version, and I don't have a scanner. I'm surprised that curbed hasn't posted them yet.

[scumonkey]

I'm surprised that curbed hasn't posted them yet.
they must have heard you cauz they just did!
Here they are!!
http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_2_somyards.jpg

[pianoman11686]

Brookfield Taps SOM for Other West Side Rail Yards [UPDATED]

by Eliot Brown | February 21, 2008

http://observer.cast.advomatic.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/brookfield.jpg

Brookfield Properties seems to like the architectural veterans over at Skidmore Owings and Merrill these days. Brookfield brought on the longtime firm to design its two signature towers in its bid for the West Side rail yards, and now the mega-office landlord has released an SOM-designed rendering for two office towers on a superblock to the east, bounded by 31st and 33rd streets, and Ninth and 10th Avenues (which are rather reminiscent of the designs for the rail yards to the east). The site currently opens to rail tracks that lead into Pennsylvania Station.

The Times’ Charles Bagli had a piece today on Brookfield’s development, and while the print edition had a small rendering, the online version went without it. Accordingly, I called over to the folks at Brookfield, and they gave us the pretty picture to the right.

Brookfield announced plans earlier this month to start construction on a $600 million platform over the rail tracks around June, with completion expected in 2010. The first of the office/mixed-use towers could see completion by 2013; though, as CEO Ric Clark told us a few months back, they probably won't build without a tenant

Update: 2:30 p.m.

If the renderings don't show it, these towers will be really, really tall. The one on the left is supposed to be 66 stories at 1,216 feet, while the one on the right is supposed to be 60 at 935 feet, according to a Brookfield spokeswoman.

For comparison, the Empire State Building is 1,250 feet.

Copyright 2008 The New York Observer (http://www.observer.com/2008/brookfield-taps-som-other-west-side-rail-yards)

[RandySavage]

Not bad. Since it seems likely that Hudson Yards will go to developers with anchor tenants (not Brookfield), we'll be seeing their HY SOM towers two blocks to the east. NIMBYs will be sure to make a fuss over their size, and will hopefully be ignored.

[antinimby]

^ Well, someone should tell those NIMBYs that if they're not allowed to build as big and as large as they can in places like this, then when the city do need to expand in the future, then they will have to do so at the expense of already developed sites (like the Hotel Penn, Drake, etc.) and in already developed areas of the city.

The buildings look surprisingly nice.Surprising is right but it's still kinda bland.

[sfenn1117]

^I agree. Obviously glad they aren't straight up boxes, but the ground level looks very cold.

Still, let's get them built. The office space is needed and if built today would be the second tallest building in the city. Great stuff.

[alonzo-ny]

3mil plus sq feet and only 1200'???

[kz1000ps]

Hey, 55 Water manages to pack 3.8 million into 687 feet. Not that that's a good thing.

[TREPYE]

Not straight wall boxes but the next worst thing....
Monotnous, flat top and worst of all at 1200 feet it makes no decent contribution on the skyline, at least from that angle it doesnt look promising at all. If anthing These monstrocities will contribute nothing to the skyline except perhaps the southward expansion of that stupid midtown plateau.

The vast majority of SOM-NY building designs are a despicable joke on NYC's fabric. Cant they ust go bankrupt and fold, Im tired of the mediocrity that they give this city.





http://observer.cast.advomatic.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/brookfield.jpg

[sfenn1117]

It's not an expansion of the plateau when one tower is 1,200+ feet.

They will dominate the view from Jersey for just a short time til the railyards are built out.

[TREPYE]

1200+ foot flat top.

[scumonkey]

The top looks sloped to me (as well as curved on one side).
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/slant.jpg

[antinimby]

Don't worry TREPYE. This probably will not be the final version. It will most likely get redesigned to suit whoever the future tenants may be.

For instance, a financial firm might want a fat base.

Of course, I just hope that at that time, we won't actually wish for this design back again but there is always that possibility.

[sfenn1117]

I know I'd like to see it built as is. If Boston Properties' tower on 8th ave had any torque in the design, I'd be thrilled.

[antinimby]

I could live with this design although what bothers me a little (but not as much as reading that nauseating Times article about Kaufman :mad:) is how SOM seems to get a large share of the commercial jobs right now.

This city's developers should look more at FoxFowle, Cook+Fox and Foster instead.

[Stern]

I have to admit I'm disapointed. Not with the height but with the design. Hopefully Brookfield loses its railyard bid and uses the design for the tower tandem there, here. Although essentially the same the railyard duo is far more dynamic and vastly superior. Also whats up with the height? The south building is 6 storeys more but 300 feet taller?

[Skylimitone]

I can live with the current design...its clean. I don't expect much from SOM's US designs. When I visit their website I see more creativity for international projects.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Disappointed. It's one curved facade away from being awful. This would be the most boring building over 1000' in the world. It sticks out literally like a sore thumb. I hope there is a redesign, this one is a dumbed down version of the first we saw which was barely adequate, so they're heading in the wrong direction.

[Optimus Prime]

I'm disappointed as well. I would be okay with this design if it was built like this, but we all know that the designs are often made stodgier as the process moves along. The plans don't have anything to compromise, really.

SOM-NY is lame.

[krulltime]

http://observer.cast.advomatic.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/brookfield.jpg

I think they look fine. I can live with these two (sort of) twins. I hope they keep the slopes on the roof. They actually look very elegant to me. There is so much going on around this area. :cool:

[kliq6]

Design is fine to me and size is about right. Problem is I wouldnt expect tenants to be lining up now, especially since they will get much more incentives to take WTC space

[alonzo-ny]

$600m to build a platform is a big risk IMO, I guess chances are the market will have turned two years and financial firms can think about upgrading.

[NYguy]

$600m to build a platform is a big risk IMO, I guess chances are the market will have turned two years and financial firms can think about upgrading.

Not only that, but it sits in between the massive railyards development just to the west, and the massive MSG/Penn Station redevelopment just to the east. It practically begs to be developed.

[alonzo-ny]

True

[NYguy]

The taller tower needs a more distinctive top if it is to be distinguished from the parade of
1,000 footers that will fill the area.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93285545/original.jpg


Some of the west side's taller proposals...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93285910/large.jpg


And a parade of New York's tallest. I think the west side needs a spire in the mix of
towers planned there. Or at least more distinctive designs like the WTC...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93285912/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93285912/original.jpg

[Scraperfannyc]

NYC is finally getting the new kind of towers that it deserves. The west is the best for now.

Those closeups of Brookfield towers look really nice, but I agree that it could use a more distincitive top.

[Ed007Toronto]

How's this going to impact the view of the Empire State Building from New Jersey?

[econ_tim]

How's this going to impact the view of the Empire State Building from New Jersey?

obviously it will line up with ESB from some jersey vantage point

[Fabrizio]

Note the enlarged photo of the SOM towers.

Can anyone here explain how they will give the building a completely seamless glass skin, as shown?

A skin that is also DISTANCED from the floors?

The building looks like it is set in an aspic mold.

And you folks are complaining about the flat top? Believe me guys, these are going to be the greatest, most revolutionary skyscrapers in the world. Ever.

[MidtownGuy]

:D:DFabrizio, I was about to say the same thing, remembering we had that discussion a while back about the curved glass storefronts! This is a preposterous rendering. Expect all curves removed, and normal glass panels. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't taper either in the final product.


Aspic mold...that was my laugh out loud moment of the day.

[antinimby]

What's going on with the ground level there? Looks like a skating rink.

[alonzo-ny]

It looks like they spent an entire week coming up with this. It basically the HY proposal with something weird going on at ground level.

[BrooklynRider]

NYC is not about artful design. It is about maximizing revenue and profit. I really don't mind the designs.

Surprised they didn't tell the renderer that MSG and Penn Plaza are on 8th Ave - not 9th Ave. That little detail in the reflection bugs me.

[BrooklynLove]

big. ass. building. s.

[Stern]

NYC is not about artful design. It is about maximizing revenue and profit. I really don't mind the designs.

Surprised they didn't tell the renderer that MSG and Penn Plaza are on 8th Ave - not 9th Ave. That little detail in the reflection bugs me.

Not to nitpick but you can see part of the post-office in the large rendering.

[TREPYE]

Typical SOM :rolleyes:.

Such ANEMIC building design......


http://observer.cast.advomatic.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/brookfield.jpg

[TonyO]

Brookfield likes Manhattan as much as Toronto
Real Estate Weekly
Daniel Geiger
2/22/2008

But will Brookfield build on 9th without an anchor?

Yesterday The New York Times reported that Brookfield Properties plans to begin readying its development site on 9th Avenue between 31st and 33rd Streets for construction of up to 5.5 million square feet. The decision to begin the work, which entails building a platform over the LIRR rail yard tracks that run beneath the site, was first reported by rew-online.com on February 7 after the company’s chief executive, Richard Clark, mentioned that the construction would commence during a conference call that day.

The Times’ story provides a first look at renderings of the curvaceous pair of office towers that Brookfield wants to build on the parcel. The question is whether the firm will begin building the skyscrapers, once it has prepared the site, without an anchor tenant in place. The New York Observer, in a post yesterday, indicated that the answer to that would be no, a logical assumption considering the uncertain demand for office space now that the economy appears to be entering a pronounced slowdown.

On top of that, Brookfield is one of the bidders for the West Side rail yards a block west of its 9th Avenue site. Millions of square feet of office space and residential development are planned for the rail yards site, a major project that may discourage Brookfield from adding more supply in the area on speculative basis.

But during the conference call, Clark made an interesting comparison when assessing the risk of developing projects in the different office markers where Brookfield has a presence. Houston, which Clark described as a strong market because of the concentration of energy sector tenants there, was a city where Brookfield wouldn’t develop on spec because he said that other developers are planning projects that could quickly create a glut of supply.

“It makes us nervous,” Clark said. “It’s more risk than Toronto or New York.”

In Toronto, Brookfield is in the process of building a new office complex, the Bay Adelaide Center, whose later phases may be built on spec. If Brookfield likes Manhattan as much as Toronto as Clark seemed to suggest, could that mean the REIT may in fact go ahead with the 9th Avenue project, especially if it doesn’t win the right to develop the rail yards?

[antinimby]

Building the platform now is a no brainer. Construction costs are only going to get higher with each passing year. Building the same platform five years from now will cost more, ten year from now even more than that and so on.

I'm certain their thinking is that eventually a platform is going to have to get built anyway so it might as well be built now. Once the platform is built, they can always build the towers immediately once a tenant is found.

I should have majored in and gone into business. :(

[Stern]

Not necessarily. There are only so many construction firms that can do a project like this. A major reason why construction is so expensive right now is because there is so much construction going on. These few firms are taking advantage of the basic principle of supply and demand. When construction dies down, and it will, say in five or ten years prices will shoot down.

[kliq6]

There not going to go with aproject bigger then the ESB without something. They have had this site for years and have had multiple designs by not only SOM but Fox Fowle, Pei Cobb and even Costas for a residential tower.

They may build the platform, with a proper loan.suuport from the city but thats it for now

[NYguy]

This is turning into one of my favorite Manhattan developments.

From the Manhattan West website:
http://www.brookfieldpropertiesmanhattanwest.com/

A look at the plaza, and comparison with the Hudson Yards proposal...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93427510/medium.jpg__http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89339266/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93427510/large.jpg

[londonlawyer]

It seens like this plaza should bear the name beaver moreso than Balaz's project.

[antinimby]

Both designed to come down and ensnare unsuspecting passersby.

[Scraperfannyc]

Wowza!!! This is really looking great! NYC is now getting the development it deserves from downtown to Midtown West.

[lofter1]

WTF is that butterfly net thing supposed to be / do ?

Both this one and the crossed bayonets from the HY proposal are really lame looking. Neither appears to add much to a small-ish public plaza between two towers. In fact, both structures seem to enclose what is already cramped space.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

The sole purpose of both seems to be to hide the hulking mass of concrete which rises on Tenth Avenue.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

[alonzo-ny]

Two towers in a plaza with a random element between is what i see. Clearly underdeveloped. Placeholders... I hope.

[Dynamicdezzy]

this is probably why.....

Late-Breaking CurbedWire: Brookfield Out at Hudson Yards
Tuesday, February 26, 2008, by Joey
YARDSMANIA—The MTA just sent out a statement regarding the revised bids for the West Side Rail Yards: "In January, the MTA asked each of the five development teams that submitted proposals for the Hudson Yards to submit revised proposals adhering to a deal structure preferred by the MTA. The deadline for responses was today. We received revised proposals from four teams, which we are reviewing. Brookfield Properties did not submit a revised proposal. The MTA continues to adhere to the existing schedule." This is not surprising, given Brookfield's new money-sucking mini-Hudson Yards just to the east. Relive the good ol' days by checking out Brookfield's bid. R.I.P. [CurbedWire Inbox]

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/02/26/latebreaking_curbedwire_brookfield_out_at_hudson_y ards.php

[antinimby]

^ Well, because Brookfield was a favorite here, you just know it had to go.

We jinxed it. Now we just need to collectively root for more Kaufman-McSams. :D

[Stern]

Hopefully Brookfield moves the two towers from Hudson Yards here.

[Skylimitone]

Crains New York




Brookfield profits down on falling property sales

Brookfield said strong commercial property results offset slow residential operations.
April 25. 2008 10:21AMBy:

http://cnimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CN&Date=20080425&Category=FREE&ArtNo=6813909&Ref=AR&Profile=1058&maxw=319&border=0 Buck Ennis
Commercial real estate company Brookfield Properties Corp. said Friday its first-quarter profit tumbled 57%, hurt by the absence of income from discontinued operations.

The company reported income of $23 million, or 6 cents per share, compared with $53 million, or 13 cents per share, in the 2007 quarter.

In the 2007 quarter, Brookfield reported a net gain of $34 million, or 8 cents per share, on the sale of three properties in Toronto and Ottawa. Those discontinued operations are not included in the current quarter.

Funds from operations (FFO) slipped 2% to $125 million, or 32 cents per share, from $128 million, or 32 cents per share, in the year-ago period. Results are based on 394.5 million shares outstanding as of March 31, compared with 400.8 million shares outstanding at the end of the first quarter of last year.

FFO, which adds such items as amortization and depreciation back to net income, is considered a key measure of REIT strength because it gives a more accurate picture of cash performance.

Revenue rose 5% to $665 million from $634 million in the first quarter of 2007.
Brookfield said strong commercial property results offset slow residential operations. Commercial property operating income rose 12% to $349 million.

Residential operations contributed $18 million to operating income, compared with $42 million in the same period last year.

[brianac]

Brookfield Behind on Ninth Avenue Towers

by Dana Rubinstein (http://www.observer.com/2008/author/dana-rubinstein) | September 24, 2008 |

http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/vertical/files/brookfield_0.jpg Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

Brookfield Properties has yet to begin "substantial" construction of a platform necessary to construct its two planned Ninth Avenue skyscrapers, despite earlier statements that the work would begin this past summer, according to Real Estate Weekly. (http://www.rew-online.com/news/story.aspx?id=441)
In February, Brookfield, led by hunky (http://www.observer.com/2007/observer-sits-down-brookfield-ceo-ric-clark-preview)CEO Ric Clark, said work would begin on the platform over the railyard in June, according to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21westsideWEB.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin):
"Despite a flagging economy, Brookfield Properties says it will start work in June on a $600 million platform over railroad tracks near Ninth Avenue, where it plans to build two towering office buildings."

The railyard comprises half of Brookfield's five-acre lot, bounded by Ninth and Dyer avenues, 31st and 33rd streets. Brookfield plans to erect two very tall, SOM-designed towers, one of which will soar to 66 stories, just 34 feet shy of the Empire State Building's 1,250-foot pinnacle. Tthe other will rise to 60 stories, according to an earlier Observer article (http://www.observer.com/2008/brookfield-taps-som-other-west-side-rail-yards)
http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/rew-platform-brookfields-pretty-ninth-ave-towers-appears-delayed

© 2008 Observer Media Group

[TREPYE]

I figured that one the silver lining of this bad economy is that we may dodge ever seeing those hideousnesses on the skyline.

[Ebola]

http://www.hayesdavidson.com/images/nyc5656652.jpg

http://www.hayesdavidson.com/images/9th56565656_000.jpg


http://www.hayesdavidson.com/

[NYC4Life]

That first render is actually a mirrored image. He's the correct angle:

This view is from 8th Avenue looking West at 31st Street.

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7954/53072893mp3.jpg

[philvia]

I figured that one the silver lining of this bad economy is that we may dodge ever seeing those hideousnesses on the skyline.

oh noes hong kong on the hudson!

[philvia]

those renders dont seem nearly to scale... one penn is just like 740ft... these are 1200ft+

in the render it looks 900ft at most haha

[philvia]

and why are all of the buildigns wrong? :confused:

[NYC4Life]

I agree, these renders were poorly made, but hopefully the towers themselves are of better quality :)

[JSsocal]

They look really cool, in fact I like them more so then their original form. I just hope these ones aren't shortened. :eek:

[JSsocal]

...then again I counted about 66 stories on the taller one, so that's good news

[Sherpa]

They look really cool, in fact I like them more so then their original form. I just hope these ones aren't shortened. :eek:

Amazing! They look a lot like 7 WTC tower that everyone likes so much downtown.

[Derek2k3]

I think they are to scale. I still don't think this is a final serious design, it's all so vague.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2965072901_1e56feff76.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3162/2965072885_dd5fbdcbb1.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3219/2965072897_0de00086d6.jpg

http://www.hayesdavidson.com/

[londonlawyer]

I can't see this project being built any time within the next ten years. Even if the market is robust in five years, there will be a lot of space with the WTC. Moreover, while financial firms will demand a lot of space in the future, if the government goes overboard with regulation, financial services firms (and their demand for space) can be curtailed seriously.

[NYguy]

http://www.bisnow.com/res.php?p=1601

ON DECK AT BROOKFIELD
October 2, 2008

http://www.bisnow.com/archives/nycre/1008/nycre_images/100208b.jpg


Brookfield Properties is chugging along with its gargantuan 5.4M SF Manhattan West mixed-use development, set to rise on one of the last available plots of land in Midtown—one that happens to fall partially over train tracks. But since you can’t exactly build two major office towers and a hotel in the path of locomotives, the firm is working with Amtrak and the LIRR to build a massive deck over the portion of the West Side rail yard adjacent to Farley Post Office (the future Moynihan Station). We went downtown to visit Brookfield US prez Dennis Friedrich for the latest.

http://www.bisnow.com/archives/nycre/1008/nycre_images/100208a.jpg


The SOM-designed project falls among a slew of announced office space, including the new World Trade Center and neighboring Hudson Yards. But Dennis tells us that if they keep on pace and proceed with the deck, Brookfield can be on track to deliver the space in 2013. That’ll be two or three years ahead of competitors.

Dennis says three key factors give the project a boost: the current real estate cycle, though troubled, features no office overbuilding; built-out Midtown needs this logical extension; and Governor Patterson has voiced support for improving the area’s transportation structure, specifically the Moynihan Station development, which would enhance the Brookfield play. The firm is also in leasing chatter with Condé Nast Publications, which is on the ground with a 1.2-MSF requirement (we imagine the media giant wants to surpass the nouveau-iconic Hearst Tower). Not that Brookfield has a problem with tenancy: it boasts only a 2% vacancy in its entire Manhattan portfolio.

Manhattan West is the largest project for Brookfield’s ever-growing development platform, which includes Toronto’s Bay Adelaide Center, Calgary’s Herald Block and Washington D.C.’s 77 K Street, 1225 Connecticut and Two Reston Crescent. Manhattan West will take its place on Brookfield’s trophy shelf with its best known properties—One, Two, Three, and Four World Financial Center.

http://www.bisnow.com/archives/nycre/1008/nycre_images/100208c.jpg

__________________________________

Future west side developments:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/104923909/large.jpg

[philvia]

that view from the top looks amazing!

[Shadly]

Bet these