I hope on a Megatall on Park Ave
Okay???
2 Likes
You said the same/similar thing in the Sky High Towers thread 
2 Likes
Woah woah everybody, @mtoltethys question was about planned supertall developments on Park Ave, of which this tower is the only currently planned supertall development. The next and most likely candidate for a supertall out of all the aforementioned proposals (some of which are questionable to bring up and should not be seen as likely) would be The Roosevelt Hotel site. Thereâs no plans for any of the other sites mentioned so we shouldnât speculate that they will just be supertalls only for their location, more so if they are outside the boundary of the EMR.
@lowkeylion I do believe it is still quite possible that we will see a supertall at 145 E 60th St, I donât know about very tall though, but I am wondering where you have seen that 650 Madison will be redeveloped? I have seen old news of a change of hands to Vornado/Oxford, but I havenât seen any speculation that a very tall building would be built there, a new building (of commercial zoning) wouldnât be much bigger than the exist building let alone a very tall development without a lot of air rights, and it doesnât have transit FAR incentive nor is it located in the EMR.
2 Likes
I speculate 650 Madison will be a soaring condo tower like 432 Park Avenue (650 has far more air rights and does not occupy the entire block)
The Central Park views would command enormous prices.
A hyper-tall tower wonât rise in NY for a long time, if ever. They are vanity projects for cities that are not in the first-world. Also, those cities use slave labor which dramatically contains construction costs.
1 Like
It would have to be near Central Park and have quite a big spire. A condo with a spire surpassing 2,500 or so would not surprise me within 20 years. Nobody would have predicted Central Park Tower in 2010, and 432 Park Avenue was laughed at as too tall when it was first rendered.
As far as developable air rights go from FAR, 432 Park Avenue and 650 Madison Ave have relatively similar lot areas, and if one is speculating that the zoning would change over to residential, then their eventual FARâs would also be similar. So youâre correct in comparing it to a development like 432 Park Avenue for the sake of Maximum FAR, but not so in saying that 650 has far more air rights because 432 did purchase surrounding air rights to go over its max allowable FAR.
2 Likes
Also of note: Governor Hooch is very pro-development. Removing FAR limits has been discussed.
If that happens, to cue the late great Keith Jackson . . . whoa Nelly!
A hyper tall?
And there is no âif everâ. One will eventually rise in NYC. Unless something very drastic happens, in which case skyscrapers may be the last of our worries.
Them being vanity projects is irrelevant. And not in the first world? Thatâs an outdated term to start with, it refers to sides in the Cold War. But I know what you meant, and thatâs irrelevant as well.
Some of those cities definitely do use slave labor, though thatâs not the only reason the costs are so cheap. Others being dramatically lower land value, ease of development, regulations, etc.
Also we be off topic in here.
2 Likes
@mcart Iâm sure Robert meant a megatall (?). I agree that weâve devolved from the overall topic of 350 though.
@lowkeylion I believe there is talk of removing FAR limits for residential developments, but that is as it pertained to market rate and affordable housing and not necessarily condos/residential buildings of the sort like those on 57th St.
I have a SkyscraperPage diagram waiting to be approved for the new design, though I hope to eventually change it to something else in the chances that this design changes (a lot).
14 Likes
How about a tower that connects us to Mars. Beat that Elon!
1 Like
Iâve also tried submitting drawings for them. The drawing they use for the W/Element is horrible and not accurate. I told the W/Element forum that the drawing isnât accurate and they took offense to it, rightly so though. It does look like the W, just everything isnât plotted accurately and I could definitely make an accurate diagram
1 Like
thatâs too high 2400 feet is enough.
Nice job. Thatâs impressive.
1 Like
What an Interesting Topic progression, why does the Megatall thing have to be discussed in every Topic?
3 Likes
Man I hate the new Skyscraperpage policy where unbuilt towers are blurred
4 Likes
Because we all desperately want New York to get one. At least for the United States to get one. American cities are falling behind Eastern counterparts in so many levels, specifically infrastructure and tower construction.
1 Like
I agree with you completely⌠that needs NY.
NYC is not falling behind any European city when it comes to skyscrapers.
Also again guys we have a topic for Megatalls if you want to discuss them there
4 Likes