NEW YORK | 66 Hudson Blvd (The Spiral) | 1,005 FT | 64 FLOORS


#265

People would be going crazy if we got something like 10HY down here in Charlotte. Only in New York would some of these buildings be considered “small”. :grin:


#266

I don’t think there is anywhere else in the city much less the country where there are 3 building each over a thousand feet standing in a row right next to each other.


#267

Its always a treat to literally see a skyscraper race between two sites. My money’s on the Spiral rising first vs 50 hudson.


#268

It looks like 50 HY’s excavation is further ahead…we’ll see


#269

this should dust 50 HY because its all steel with a temp steel core, a la 1VB.

50 has to do core work for 6 months before steel can start.


#270

Yesterday


#271


Tec


#272

#273

I read somewhere (think it is NYYimby) that this is going to be about 1031 ft.


#274


#275

This is such a waste of good lot. If only someone was ambitious enough to build the Hudson Spire concept that was originally shown. Could be the city’s first 600 meter tower.


#276

Depends if we’ve moved on from that weird 1776’ fetish. Didn’t CPT run into issues with its planned spire because it would have brought it above 1776’? And then people got upset because they were treating One WTC like it was the William Penn statute above city hall in Philly (how dare they build taller).

Depends if we’ve moved on from that weird argument of not building taller than One WTC.


#277

Yep. NIIMBYS were full force on that one.


#278

Agreed. They need to get over that. NYC has always been about outdoing itself, succession, grandeur. You can’t do that if you say the best is X and nothing can top it. In fact, imposing a height limit goes against the very energy and spirit that defines the city so famously for what it is. It’s doing a disservice. Hopefully this silly fad fades away.


#279

So do you mean that historic preservation instincts are always wrong? If not, then opposition to big buildings can at times have a thoughtful basis. And I suspect there are other reasons why large buildings may not be best in all locations. in my mind, not all opposition to large scale development is faddish or out of line.


#280

Not at all. I’m all for saving the beautiful and the charming. Case in point, the old Penn station should have never been destroyed. But one WTC isn’t historic. Also, NYC is one of the most rebuilt cities in the modern world. It would be criminal to hault that progress because the height of a building is regarded as taboo to exceed.


#281

Good. Maybe a better example of my problem with this webpage is 200 Amsterdam Avenue. A slew of folks have used less than flattering language to describe those who opposed the building despite the fact that the zoning authorities themselves said the original grant of a permit was wrong and that the decision stood only because of the passage of time. The opponents of that building have some very strong zoning and land use based reasons for their opposition, some very well grounded. While there are some people who oppose everything, others (hopefully including myself) try to evaluate each building on its own. There are both land use law based reasons to oppose some developments and some neighborhood ambience issues that at times have merit, especially for older sets of buildings that work well together. I would love to see more nuanced commentary on this page.


#283

#284

Today


#285