I think this is the mythical Ninth Avenue Tower. Not sure. But cool anyway.
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!!!!
I read it on Crains!!! On an article about the West Side.
This is part of the article:
I hope this is true!!!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.
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:
I think this is the mythical Ninth Avenue Tower. Not sure. But cool anyway.
I wish it would be built! We missed you Krull!
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 doesnít 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.
But not to get my hopes up the project could also be developed like One World Wide Plaza was and not top 800 feet.
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
Good riddance. Iím not going to say that anyone who canít see the relation between a skyscraper and its image is an idiot, but theyíre 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.My last post on this site
Tall building are used to capture the publicís 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 50ís, 60ís and 70ís. But that doesnít change anything, the factor behind skyscrapers is still economics, but for a company eager to capture the publicís 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.
Hereís 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 Houstonís 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 peopleís high regard for their city, culture, arts, lowered crime, etc. etc.
And while I donít 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.
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.Originally Posted by kliq6
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?
I do to an extent, but it emphasizes the problem of housing for the lower and middle class.
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.
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.Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
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?