Uhhh, what??
Now you’re just contradicting yourself because you said you “don’t do it anymore”, yet you just said “only historical pictures”. And I’m sure almost everyone remembers that “incident”. So clearly this means that you’re admitting you still do it.
@mcart sorry for bringing this conversation here 
Speaking of the spire, I wonder if it could be built in NYC.
I was looking through some stats for it and it “only” had a height to width ratio of 1 to 10 (which in 2008 would have been the slimmest skyscraper in the world, times have changed) and a sqft of something around 3 million sqft.
Maybe on the ABC HQ site?
Not that it would but just giving it a thought.
(And maybe that gateway tower over FDR)
That’s actually an interesting observation, but it’s actually too wide to fit in most of Manhattan’s blocks by several feet, but it could always be made skinnier to fit. It’s hard to tell if it would fit within NY’s zoning codes though. Which tower over FDR are you referencing though?
I’m getting so tired of seeing the word unbuilt used out of context lmao.
Well I wasn’t referencing a tower that was proposed over the FDR, I just thought that it would fit there as it was designed to go over a street like that. It was the same height as the Chicago Spire.
It was this design. Just a concept by gensler with no developer backing
Though that was more of just an off hand comment. I didn’t put much thought into it, just remembered it.
Ah, I thought you were talking about the Calatrava design, unless you were talking about both lol.
All of this was about Calatravas design.
This was about the tower in the renders I just posted.
That’s why I said it was just an off hand comment.
I once asked that same question about where would this tower be built in Midtown, and someone said on the corner of 43rd street and 5th avenue (511 5th Ave)
Isn’t that the site of 520 5th? Or one of those supertalls.
Regardless besides being just a short walk from Grand Central I don’t know anything special about that site
I’ve heard that the diameter of this tower is at least 33 meters wide
Ah so across the street from the one under construction.
Indeed, that’s correct 
Also, I think found this a coincidence. Both the Chicago Spire and Dubai Creek Tower were halted as soon as the foundations are completed, and they were both designed by the same architect.
That’s interesting that someone suggested that site since it’s still not big enough. The Chicago Spire’s footprint is 66m wide.
Also I don’t believe CS’s foundations were ever completed if even ever started, Dubai CT’s foundations were completed on the other hand and made it to ground level and was ready to go vertical.
Oh wow, that’s pretty big. I thought it was at least 33 meters (110 feet) because I found it on this site:
Per quote:
“Workers last week started moving dirt to form a landscaped berm that will block the view of the 110-foot diameter hole from a row of 10 Streeterville row homes on the 400 block of East North Water Street.”
The hole was actually only for the core, which was also not the actual size of the core, it was slightly smaller (the core diameter). The piles for the columns at the perimeter of the building were never drilled so its hard to visualize the actual diameter of the building.
Ah okay, makes sense now.
I still wish this was built somewhere in Chicago or at least NYC, as this was actually under construction before the 2008 crisis. One of the best megatalls ever proposed 
It’s interesting. If things played out right NYC could have had 4 buildings over 500 M with recent proposals.
Continuing from where I left off earlier in the general thread…
I was reading it and this line really set me off
" However, this height reduction would not result in other changes to the building’s
bulk or design, and the building would still be taller than other surrounding buildings. Therefore, the analysis provided in the FEIS for shadows, urban design, historic resources, and stationary air quality would not meaningfully change, is conservative, and no further analysis is necessary."
Then what is the point of the proposed reduction? It literally says that the height reduction will change absolutely nothing substantial about its impact on the area, so the change is complete nonsense. Makes me even more pissed. But I’m also happy that this technically hasn’t been approved. I will keep reading this whole thing.
Lol to make a long pdf short, it really just says the same thing over and over.
I somehow see the situation as being similar to how the situation was at 343 Madison Ave before the change. As they are talking about the Maximum height at 175 Park Ave as being 1646’. The Maximum height at 343 was 1050’ but was only ever designed at 930’, it’s quite possible that the 1575’ “reduction” was made in the same case and it was always shown as being that height. In essence there was always a “head” height for wiggle room.
Maybe (let’s hope not). I guess we’ll find out when the developer drops some official marketing, who knows when that could be.
