ya this is 5 or 6 sites.
closest thing I found was this one, but it is SL Green, not excel and the other side of the block.
okay now I read it closer it appears that the article only referred to the 46th side of the assemblage. And 47th side is separate and they bought the properties off SL Green.
I count a total of 8 sites in this assemblage. I cant see how this wont be really f-ing tall in an area that could use a noteworthy building.
I find this interesting about the current wave.
Look through the list. A vast majority of on going construction and proposals are in the +750 foot range. Once you get down to about 61 on this list the current projects and proposals thin out.
I think much of this has to do with the fact that unless you are building in the outer boroughs it just does not make sense economically to build under 200m or so. Which that is where we see most of the 100m-200m activity is in LIC and DOBRO. The places in Manhattan to build in this range are shrinking. With no go zones like East/West/Greenwich Villages and the NIMBY warriors in the upper east/west sides we are not seeing a ton of the 100-200meter towers.
Anyways I found this interesting, maybe someone else has a theory on why it looks this way this wave.
It’s all about the view! 
Manhattan has developed a 600’ - 700’ plateau, in Midtown and Downtown even a 800’+ one. Developers have to build tall to offer unrestricted views. Many prime locations are filled with tall skyscrapers, so there’s no way around it.
Exactly! This is why the plateau will eventually be 1000’ in even midtown, or at least certain sections. It’s slowly happening with the HY towers to start
Hey, Guys!
Check this very very very old video of New York skyline! And to think that in the future, this city will have the Age of Ramses. 
1 Like
1 Like
Even more international development money and thousands of new financial jobs to come to New York? They certainly won’t be going to our major financial competitor, London, for quite a while. If the US and NYC can stay out of a recession… Let’s see what happens!
I am sure this will help speed things alone. I think the basic point of the bill is to prevent the landmarks commission from tying up lots from being developed while they are being reviewed. The result should be that they will only be able to focus on the sites that truly deserve landmark status instead of every old building.
1 Like
Navigating the construction lending drought
Trophy office buildings and luxury condos are becoming harder to finance, but some are tapping into the right formulas
3 Likes
I was thinking this is the perfect thread for us to sticky to the top of the forum and then make actual links to each page for each building under construction. I was thinking of doing it by region of the New York Metro Area. Robert already sort of started, except it’s not categorized and it’s not linked to each page yet.
Manhattan (list all towers in height order)
Brooklyn (list all towers in height order)
Queens (list all towers in height order)
Jersey City (list all towers in height order)
Other Areas including Fort Lee, Newark, White Plains, etc.
Anyone else agree?
That would be nice indeed. There’s the supertall (actually 200m+) list on SSP, but this will take even more time. On SSP, I’ve also linked every project to its corresponding thread. I guess there has to be cut heightwise, maybe @500’.
EDIT: ok, a list for U/C buldings only wouldn’t break the mold.
We can tag it’s status next to the height within the list.
So a compilation in any case? Like a directory or table of contents?
Question for all members:
What do you think about this:
x | FT | FLOORS
WHERE X CAN BE:
- “Borough Name”
Examples:
- BROOKLYN | 286 Ashland Place | 364 FT | 32 FLOORS
- MANHATTAN | 432 Park Avenue | 1,397 FT | 85 FLOORS
ect.
Just want to get a survey up. Are some for it? Against it? Think it will help in organization?
Something that only applies to NYC based development. So in the case of Jersey City, “X”, will say: Jersey City
2 Likes
That’s a great idea, Chris!
I would like that Chris!
Yeah sort of a database. It can just be at the top of this thread, or a new one.
Manhattan
432 Park Avenue 1396’
I think Manhattan should be NEW YORK since that’s unferstood.
NEW YORK | 432 Park Ave | 1,397 FT | 85 FLOORS
While the rest gets their rightful designation.
BROOKLYN | 340 Flatbush Ave | 1,066 FT | 70 FLOORS
QUEENS | 29-27 Queens Plaza North | 915 FT | 77 FLOORS
JERSEY CITY | 99 Hudson St | 900 FT | 76 FLOORS
All, please see below on how I’d do this list. I’m thinking we can put it on the top of this page and then just pin it to the top of the forum. The name of each tower is hyperlinked to that towers page on our forums. We list each tower by area in height order and a status of where it stands construction wise. I started a small sample in Manhattan and added in the JDS site in Brooklyn.
Manhattan
Central Park Tower (Nordstrom Tower) [U/C] 1550’
111 West 57th Street (Steinway Tower) [U/C] 1428’
30 Hudson Yards [U/C] 1296’
Brooklyn
340-366 Flatbush Avenue 1066’
Queens
Jersey City
All Other Areas Including Fort Lee, White Plains, Newark, Etc.
2 Likes