daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 7th, 2014, 02:15 AM   #13641
LeCom
Registered User
 
LeCom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,396
Likes (Received): 698

So here's my little saga of the week. Yours Truly, Lecom, goes head to head against Mr. John Massengale, an esteemed New Urbanist architect and author that, despite my respect for him, chose to block my second argument about 432 Park rather than address it. Fellow forumers, sorry for the upcoming wall of text. I'd be happy if you read the following debate, but if not, please scroll right past this post. I just wanted my second response to see the light on day on a public forum where every post does not require the blog author's approval.

His original blog post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Massengale
http://blog.massengale.com/

Honestly, isn’t this building giving New Yorkers the finger?


by JOHN MASSENGALE
SEPTEMBER 28, 2014




THIS IS Robber Baron 2014 Style: Conspicuous Consumption literally taken to unprecedented heights. You can see it many miles away in Queens, the Bronx, and even Brooklyn, which means millions of New Yorkers have to look at it’s graceless form every day. You get some idea of the problem here (and to a lesser degree here).

And for what? One-hundred and twenty-five apartments on 89 floors (a number that will probably go down as Russian billionaires buy multiple units to combine into large pied-a-terres on the highest floors). Most of the occupants won’t live in the building (What New Yorker would want to live completely surrounded by undistinguished midtown office towers?) and they won’t pay much in the way of local taxes, but their empty nests (called “bullion pots in the sky” in London) will forever disfigure the skyline and steal sunlight as far away as Central Park.

In New York’s first Gilded Age, the Robber Barons built towers and civic landmarks that graced the skyline and made better streets. Most of the tall buildings were corporate office towers, like the Woolworth and the Chrysler buildings, and there were a few like the wonderful New York Municipal Building by McKim, Mead & White. The Woolworth, Chrysler, and Municipal buildings contributed to one of the great skylines of the world and at the same time made streets they stood on better. Most of the towers, institutional buildings, streets, and neighborhoods that give New York its physical character come from that time.

Today’s plutocrats are the modern-day Rockefellers, Fricks, and Morgans. But unlike those men, who both took from the city and gave to it, the international 1% parking their money here today take far more than they give. They’re also helping to chase the middle class out of the city.

Last but not least, this building—the tallest building in New York*—is somehow “as of right.” Before the Bloomberg Administration waved its magic wand over air rights, the building would have been illegal. And in more reasonable times, when developers built much lower “sliver buildings,” the Giuliani administration made those illegal. We understand that Mayor de Blasio doesn’t want to offend the controllers of the largest SuperPAC in New York (the Real Estate Board of New York), but this is a part of the Tale of Two Cities that led so many of us to vote for de Blasio.

* The antenna at the Freedom Tower makes it “taller” than 432 Park Avenue, but the top floor at the Freedom Tower is lower than the highest floor at 432 Park Avenue. As far as I know, this is the first time in the 390-year history of New York that our tallest building has been residential.

PS: Here is the building that was torn down for 432 Park. As an urban building, a building that contributes to the street and the “space between the buildings” where public life takes place, it is infinitely superior. Big development, just like Big Finance, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture, is diminishing our future for the short term gain of the richest of the rich.

PPS: In The Happy City, Charles Montgomery shows that the people who live very far from the ground are less happy than those in the lower floors of the same buildings, where they are more in touch with their fellow human beings. We are social beings. We might want to visit the clouds now and then, but we’re not happy living there.
My first response. A bit too fiery for my typical modus operandi, but the guy got me pretty worked up with his inaccuracies; besides, it was more moderate than most other posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VO aka Lecom
John, your key arguments hinge around this tower’s aesthetics, as well as its impact on the city. Speaking of former, beauty is a matter of personal taste.

“Honestly, isn’t this building giving New Yorkers the finger?”
– No, it isn’t. The same can be said about any prominent structure that breaks the line of the horizon and does not appeal to your tastes, whether it’s the Empire State Building or your neighbor’s chimney. “It’s tall. It’s pointy. I think it’s ugly. It’s a middle finger to everyone, right guys?”

You may call it “boring repetition of the shaft” while I would describe it asa “refined minimalist tower with unrestrained verticality and dignified sophistication without the clutter”. Neither of us would be objectively right. At the end of the day, some people like the aesthetics of an object, and others don’t. Both of us can attack or defend its looks based on historical references and comparative stylistic analysis, but it won’t change the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Your post becomes more problematic and misguided when you make sweeping generalizations about the tower’s effect on the city as a whole, without backing up any of your claims.

“THIS IS Robber Baron 2014 Style: Conspicuous Consumption literally taken to unprecedented heights. You can see it many miles away in Queens, the Bronx, and even Brooklyn, which means millions of New Yorkers have to look at it’s graceless form every day.”
– Why would you imagine that “millions of New Yorkers” consider it “graceless” rather than “graceful”? Not everyone agrees with your opinion, nor does everyone agree with mine. I would never have the audacity to claim millions of supporters in my hometown if my only “evidence” is a collection of disparaging forum posts. You may be right, you may be wrong, but face it – you do not know whether the majority of the city likes the building or not. It’s fine if you don’t like this building, but do not speak for the whole city if you cannot back up your words.

“And for what? One-hundred and twenty-five apartments on 89 floors (a number that will probably go down as Russian billionaires buy multiple units to combine into large pied-a-terres on the highest floors).”
– New York is a global city with a great number of high-profile persons with global influence. The taxes paid by wealthy foreigners and non-New Yorker Americans helps provide for the services used by New Yorkers every day. Since Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from Indians, New York was born, raised and nurtured via global commerce and transplants (I’m pretty sure Dutch traders and English colonizers are not Native Americans). Complaints about foreign investors in a city built in large part by the idea of foreign investment seem short-sighted at best. But then again, “John Massengale” sounds like a typical Lenape Indian name, so I would assume that your ancestors have lived in Manhattan for thousands of years, and thus you have a great claim for complaining about transplants and foreigners changing the island.

“Most of the occupants won’t live in the building”
– yep, this is probably true. But, so what? It stands in an area with a very high daytime population density, and it won’t make or break Midtown, the world’s largest office district that shares space with thousands of existing residences, if 89 extra apartments are all full or all empty at any given moment.

“(What New Yorker would want to live completely surrounded by undistinguished midtown office towers?)”
– Again, absolutely unfounded personal opinion. Of course, to many of us, Midtown might not be a preferable neighborhood, but you speak about this as if you’ve conducted a survey or something. Personally, I’d find that neighborhood too hectic for my preferences, but who cares about what I personally like when it comes to gauging historic trends and public opinion? Let’s look at more reliable figures. New Yorkers have lived in high-rise towers in Midtown side by side with office towers for almost a hundred years, since Ritz Tower (http://www.theritztower.com/) opened its doors in 1925. Times changed, so did architectural styles, but this tradition remained. Instead of opulent spires, modernist slabs like the Olympic Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Tower) shared space with modernist office towers nearby. This is 2014. A new decade, an evolving skyline, same principle of multi-use highrise districts. If you so desire, I would provide an exhaustive list of residential towers in Midtown Manhattan. You can even give me the street coordinates for what you constitute Midtown, and I would oblige. Now, can you provide any evidence as to why New Yorkers “don’t want to live completely surrounded by undistinguished midtown office towers”?

“won’t pay much in the way of local taxes”
– says who? These ultra-luxury buildings provide local job creation on a short-term basis for construction workers that are hired to build the towers and long-term basis as well for the staff that is hired to service these wealthy people. The construction of this building cost about $1.2 billion, with hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to local steelworkers, concrete crews, electricians, plumbers, local architects, accountants, lawyers, engineering consultants, etc. And all of that income is taxed as well. Besides, the building ‘s combined unit cost comes up to almost $3 billion (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/0...ark_avenue.php). Think of property taxes alone that will go into New York’s budget thanks to that. Given these facts, please explain how all this translates into “not paying much in the way of local taxes”. Perhaps you have figures or analysis that would convince me.

“steal sunlight as far away as Central Park.”
– You would have much better luck making this claim about other proposed skyscrapers in the vicinity, but 432 Park Avenue’s impact would not be as prominent. Consider the following shadow studies. 432 Park is the rectangle all the way to the right. Note how in the winter (http://static4.businessinsider.com/i...05.28%20am.png), its shadow will be minimal and will leave the park before noon. In the summer (http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...05.13%20am.png), the building will cast no shadow over the park *at all* during most days. In either case, it’s evident that the bulk of current shadows is cast by buildings that have already existed for many years. Do they really make Central Park into an inhospitable dark abyss? I agree that it is best to avoid blocking large amounts of sunlight to parks if possible. However, you’ve picked the wrong building to lodge that complaint against.

Gosh, that’s just my response to your first couple of paragraphs. The rest of your post is equally misguided, no offense. If you desire, I would continue my breakdown of your errors and misunderstandings at a later time. You have the strongest point in regards to Drake Hotel’s destruction. I agree, it was an amazing building that should have been landmarked and preserved. If you made a post strictly complaining about its destruction, I would be behind you 100%. However, your post opposes the new construction that went up in its place. It is a fair argument if you are saying that 432 Park is an unworthy replacement, but it comes off as if you think that the new building is ugly because the old building was pretty. What happened to judging buildings on their own merits rather than by comparison?

I’m sorry if some of my arguments came off combative. I hope you take no offense.
His reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Massengale
Interesting how much hostility this is provoking. It would be interesting to know too how many of the people who are upset did not go to architecture school (my guess is one or none).

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” has been the mantra of architecture schools since World War II. But many recent studies show it’s not true. Walk a group of people around a city with maps in hand, ask them to chart which blocks they like and which they don’t, and you will find a public consensus. Of course there are individual preferences, but those also fall into patterns: to give one example, some like more formal, some like more picturesque. And then there’s the fact that most of us can acknowledge quality of different types. SOM’s Lever House and McKim, Mead & White’s Municipal Building are great designs, even if are own designs or personal favorites are not like either.

VO (Editor's note: VO = Lecom), of course I don’t say, “It’s tall. It’s pointy. I think it’s ugly. It’s a middle finger to everyone, right guys?” There are many beautiful tall towers in Manhattan, and many of them are in fact more pointy than 432 Park: the pointy tops are part of what makes the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings more visually interesting than 432 Park. Minimalism and unvarying, mechanical repetition are boring when the building is 1,300 feet tall. We have enough information (like surveys taken for the East Midtown plan) to know that the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers agree.

The issue is not Classical or traditional versus Modern. There are many beautiful Modern buildings in New York. But the very wide, very tall, monochrome glass boxes that look like they were wrapped in graph paper and then covered in shrink-wrap plastic are boring. As they get larger, the boring boxes get oppressive.

Google things like “billionaire row” and “57th Street” and you will find articles and posts from all sorts of sources that also object to the economic side and what it is doing to a great city. Three-quarters of the city agrees with Occupy Wall Street and wishes Mayor de Blasio would do more about the Tale of Two Cities that was at the heart of his election. Take a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1suQP1vC4 or this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eohHwsplvY. These are not by architects and they have nothing to do with anti-Modernism.

This is an architecture school disease. Universities with on-campus housing survey their students every year to see where they want to live, and we know that the buildings the architecture schools love and promote are almost always the least popular. Architecture students should ask themselves why their taste is not just dramatically different from their friends and fellow students but actually in opposition to them. The average person is neither anti-Classical or anti-Modern. What they crave are places that make them feel good. See Charles Montgomery’s The Happy City.

BTW, SHoP takes similar forms over in Brooklyn and makes them interesting.
Clearly, this gentleman was surprised that not everyone agrees with his opinion. He even took to Twitter to express his surprise to the author of The Happy City, a book that seemed interesting enough for me to put on my reading list. I was hoping that this third fellow would join our discussion. Instead, Mr. Massengale chose to block rather than answer the following challenge:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VO aka Lecom
John, thank you for your reply. Before I begin, let me say that I strongly disagree with many (not all) of your points, and that's one of the reasons why I'm enjoying this discussion. Disagreeable viewpoints get me fired up and force me to do some serious critical thinking as well as deeper research on my subjects of interest. The world would be a boring place if we all just agree with one another, and shying away from polarizing opinions results in mental inbreeding with no new ideas coming in. Besides, sometimes I change my view about a thing or two in the process. I'm sorry if you feel personally insulted at any point. This is not my intention. I have looked through your website and admire many of your projects and ideas. I am a strong believer in human scaled design myself, am a [partial] admirer of New Urbanism, and your links to additional stuff (e.g. http://streets-book.com/home)... I'd actually be willing to do some promotion for that. It's right up my alley. You come off as someone I'd enjoy having a drink with while getting into a heated discussion.

Having said that...

"Interesting how much hostility this is provoking."
- You posted a controversial and polarizing opinion piece. Voice an opinion - get ready for flak.

"It would be interesting to know too how many of the people who are upset did not go to architecture school (my guess is one or none)."
- What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Is architectural critique reserved only for enlightened elites, and mere mortals without this level of education must bow their heads in respect and keep silent? I'm sure that it's not what you meant, but that's what it sounds like to me. I'm sure that I'm mistaken and that you know better than saying something like that. If that is indeed what you meant, then it is downright offensive. Whether someone never went to school at all or is a professor emeritus that outranks everyone in the AIA, please judge their words on their own merit rather than on the speaker's background.

" 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' has been the mantra of architecture schools since World War II."
- Right. In the past, architecture styles were much more regimented and linear in their development because the instructors taught their students about what is good and what is bad, same as the rest of society functioned. Mandatory conformity ruled the day. Thankfully, our postmodern world is defined by a plurality of ideas, accepting that different viewpoints, lifestyles and movements have their own merits, while the top-down structure where the elite tells everyone what to think, how to behave, and what to like is being increasingly discredited. Architecture also accepted this pluralist concept, recognizing that a variety of movements and approaches have their own merits rather than forcing their ideas of "good" and "bad" upon everyone whether they agree or not. I'm really not sure what you were driving at with that statement. What were you getting at? Again, how is architecture school relevant here?

"But many recent studies show it’s not true."
"We have enough information (like surveys taken for the East Midtown plan) to know that the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers agree."
"Google things like “billionaire row” and “57th Street” and you will find articles and posts from all sorts of sources that also object to the economic side and what it is doing to a great city. Three-quarters of the city agrees with Occupy Wall Street"
- Fact: apples are clearly better than oranges. Many recent studies show it’s true. We have enough information to know that the overwhelming majority of people agree. Google things like “apples” and “oranges” and you will find articles and posts from all sorts of sources that support my viewpoint, because I don't feel like doing the legwork to support my own claims. Three-quarters of the world agrees with me.

...see how misinformed and condescending you sound when you make a controversial claim and then not only refuse to support it, but also ask the other person to do all the busy work for you? Whenever you make a claim, the burden of proof is always on you. As of individual points (like the East Midtown Rezoning Plan and googling Billionaire's Row), I'll address them later. It's your approach that I have an issue with. Note how in my previous wall of text, I have not asked you even a single time to look up anything I claimed to be a fact. It's bad form, plain and simple. Either be ready to back your words up, or leave it ambiguous (allowing us to read it as opinion), or say nothing at all. Never say "These are facts and you should do the research to prove me right." Saying "studies show" without showing actual studies is an insult to any reader's intelligence.

"Walk a group of people around a city with maps in hand, ask them to chart which blocks they like and which they don’t, and you will find a public consensus. Of course there are individual preferences, but those also fall into patterns: to give one example, some like more formal, some like more picturesque. And then there’s the fact that most of us can acknowledge quality of different types. SOM’s Lever House and McKim, Mead & White’s Municipal Building are great designs, even if are own designs or personal favorites are not like either."
- That is true to a limited extent. Like I said before, beauty is subjective, but I guess we both agree that there are things that the majority considers ugly, and things they consider good-looking. Most people would agree that this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...March_2004.jpg) is a better looking building than this (http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/p...um/9760360.jpg), but even the latter might have fans: a large portion of urban enthusiasts admires urban grit, calling pristine surfaces "soulless" and "sterile", while mass-produced slab housing of the type pictured above, known in urban enthusiast communities as "Commieblocks", has its own fan clubs. Here's one example (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=477). In summary, while there is some consensus on aesthetics and neighborhood appeal, beauty is still subjective to personal, social and cultural standards. Protected historic districts and uniformly designed neighborhoods have their place in most cities, for all the right reasons, but on a greater scale, forcing one "elite" group's standards of beauty upon everyone is not only unnatural, but also tends to backfire. When the Nazi Party declared which design styles are "good" and which are "bad", they held an exhibit of "proper art" juxtaposed against a sideshow of "Degenerate Art" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition), where the Nazis placed any design work that, in their view, "insult German feeling, or destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill" (Spotts, Frederic (2002). Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. The Overlook Press. p. 151). As over a million people showed up to see the exhibit in six weeks, it became clear that the "taste-makers" are often so caught up in their delusions of self-importance that they lose touch with what the public actually wants. You seem to refer to this trend as the "architecture school disease", where you say that "studies show"... without actually showing any studies... well, you already know how I feel about weasel words like that. This whole "some argue" approach to supposed facts is so trite that it's become a common butt of jokes (http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=Some%20Argue). An example from the link I provided: "Wikipedia entry: 'Some argue that President Barack Obama was involved in the mass murder of over 12,000 kittens in February of 2004.' Sensible person: 'Care to list a source for me, buddy? Other than yourself, I mean.' "

As of the comparison to the ESB and Chrysler, I agree that 432 Park's flat "chimney stack" top pales in comparison with the whimsical, brick/stone/steel pinnacles of the Art Deco giants. However, just because those two have better looking crowns, it does not make 432 Park ugly in its own right, even if it's an overall worse building in many people's eyes.

"Minimalism and unvarying, mechanical repetition are boring when the building is 1,300 feet tall."
- More opinion-based postulates. I don't think we need to re-hash everyone's favorite debate of Mies van der Rohe's "Less is More" versus Robert Venturi's "Less is a Bore". At least here we are in agreement, since you say "The issue is not Classical or traditional versus Modern. There are many beautiful Modern buildings in New York." There are both great and ugly examples of rectilinear Modernist facades, which you aptly described as "look like they were wrapped in graph paper and then covered in shrink-wrap plastic". Let's look no further than your Seagram Building example: while the tower is a timeless masterpiece, a number of stylistic imitators that were built nearby come off exactly as dull and atrocious as you described, usually failing because of cheap materials, bungled details, no respect for proportions, etc. Large size of many of these buildings can often be a problematic factor, as you described: oppressive, monotonous, and frequently deadening on the street level. Still, I'm at a loss as to why you listed it to support your critique of 432 Park. This structure is the very opposite of a squat and wide structure, isn't it? This is a fact. Now the following is an opinion - my opinion: stretched to this fantastical combination of height and slenderness, an otherwise dull facade becomes just the right skin needed for this type of building: an elegant, clean, clutter-free pattern stretched towards the sky; at only 6 windows in width, it is too narrow to be dull to the point of slab-like oppression, no matter the height. I know that your opinion differs. I'm willing to agree to disagree, but you will not convince me that you are objectively right on this one. At least put more effort into your argument than "studies show".

You attempt to do the latter here:
"We have enough information (like surveys taken for the East Midtown plan) to know that the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers agree."
Your attempt failed.

Allow me to explain. I have been following the East Midtown rezoning saga since its inception, and I remember various arguments for and against its different elements. Since you kindly refused to provide any of the information that you mentioned (which should be plentiful and easy to find, right? You did say we have "enough" of it), I do not know whether you are referring to some wide-reaching survey where the majority has stated that "minimalism and unvarying, mechanical repetition are boring when the building is very tall", as you claim. The studies that I am aware of state none of that. Even a basic Google search of "east midtown rezoning survey" does not show predominantly negative responses. However, let's cherry-pick one example that gets at least close to supporting your opinion which you present as fact:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2013...ning-poll-says
"http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131017/midtown/majority-of-e-midtown-residents-businesses-oppose-rezoning-poll-says"

"MIDTOWN — An informal online poll sent to East Midtown residents and businesses this summer revealed that a majority of respondents opposed the Bloomberg Administration's plan to rezone 73 blocks around Grand Central Terminal. The poll showed that of the 108 residents and businesses who responded, 63 percent said they opposed the proposal, with just 28 percent supporting it. The poll, conducted in August by the East Midtown Partnership, asked, "What do you think of the city's proposal to 'upzone' a large section of East Midtown (including parts of this district), allowing for some more modern, larger commercial buildings but also adding more people to the area and potentially straining mass transit and public spaces?" Of those in favor of the rezoning plan, only 7.4 percent said they strongly supported it."

Now, let's see: does the study make it clear that the participants in the survey do not line the plan because of "large and modern" buildings, or because of "straining mass transit and public spaces" by adding more people, or because of other, unspecified reasons (e.g. generic Not-In-My-Backyard anti-development reaction, opposition to new local competitors, historic preservation, or just because it's a half-baked masterplan with a number of problems)? No, it does not. And it definitely does not say that "the majority of respondents said that they do not want large buildings with Modernist facades". You made a huge logical leap by filling in the gaps with baseless assumptions only to support your claim. If I was asked to take part in the survey at the time, I would have voted against it because it does not provide enough protection to existing pre-war structures on site. I have no issue with increased permissible size, given unparalleled mass transit capacity in the immediate vicinity. However, someone like you would hijack my "no" vote by saying "see? he voted against it, which means that he dislikes large and monotonous buildings". Your argument where "East Midtown Rezoning surveys prove me right" falls absolutely flat, at least in the way you approached it.

And *even if* the poll said exactly what you claimed it would, even its supporters agree that it is not some be-all, end-all fact:
" 'Clearly, the survey shows a level of discontent or, if nothing else, skepticism,' East Midtown Partnership president Rob Byrnes said. 'The city needs to take it seriously.' He emphasized that the East Midtown Partnership has not taken a position on the rezoning plan, and that the partnership's poll, distributed via the organization's website and newsletter, 'was not scientific.' "

“Google things like “billionaire row” and “57th Street” and you will find articles and posts from all sorts of sources that also object to the economic side and what it is doing to a great city.”
- Incidentally, if you Google either of those, you would come upon some of my own work on documenting this trend, which I began before 432 Park Avenue even broke ground. Thus, the only factually correct part of your statement is that "you will find articles and posts from all sorts of sources". Heck, you are talking to one of those sources right now. As for the other half - "sources that also object to the economic side and what it is doing to a great city" - well, yeah, some sources support this trend, some object against it (for a great variety of reasons), some have taken middle ground. I explained in my previous posts the economic benefits to the common New Yorker that these ultra-luxury towers provide. The least you could do is return the courtesy by outlining its supposed economic disadvantages, rather than saying "you google it for me". Perhaps you are complaining about general economic inequality in the city? The growing gap between the rich and the poor? It appears as if you are saying that "rich people buying apartments in tall towers is bad for the city's economy, and most sources agree with me". Care to elaborate, or at least explain that I'm misreading your claim? You gave me nothing to work with.

"Take a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1suQP1vC4"
Thank you for the memories. I actually remember seeing the flyer for that NIMBY-fest, the one that introduces the video. I would not normally use such disparaging language for a community meeting of concerned citizens, but since those fellows refuse to take the subject seriously, I refuse to take them seriously as well. When I clicked on the link, I was hoping for an actual authority figure, but all I got is a is a comedy routine by a Jane Jacobs wannabe, with all of the fiery passion and love for New York, and none of the grace, manners, nor insight. Busting on the rich and making fun of overheard college kid conversations may get a laugh out of a like-minded crowd, but it does not make her an authority nor a factual source on urban design. One57 looks like a washing machine! Ha-ha-ha! Bloomberg is tall and Jewish, so he cannot be President! Ha-ha-ha! I would be offended by her claim that college campuses cannot possibly work in urban environments, but I do not get offended by those that I cannot take seriously. I understand the jokes, and thanks for providing an alternate viewpoint, but how does it support your view that tall towers for rich people are ruining the city? As I've said in my previous post, skyline-busting towers built for the 1% have been popping up across the city for almost a century, like the example I referred to. Ritz Tower was built for the ultra-rich and stood twice as tall as any other apartment tower on Earth, and it has stood on the same 57th Street and Park Ave intersection that 432 Park sits by since 1925, and it did not destroy New York as we know it, even though critics were describing it in similar terms to how they describe 432 Park today. In her book, "New York, New York," [1993, Henry Holt and Company], Elizabeth Hawes wrote: "At forty-one stories, it was the first residential skyscraper in the city and the tallest such structure in the world. It looked like sheer verticality as it narrowed, like a telescope, up through its setbacks, to a tower in the clouds. It was a 'sky-puncture,' 'a flare,' the critics said, quite overcome, noting that 'even the 'professional' New Yorker, who has ceased to [be] awed by the wonders of the present age, stops to view and contemplate the actual arrival of the home five hundred feet high.' " Of course, the "setback" bit does not apply to 432 Park, but at this point we are discussing public and critic attitudes towards super-tall residentials on 57th and across the city, rather than stylistic differences.

"Universities with on-campus housing survey their students every year to see where they want to live, and we know that the buildings the architecture schools love and promote are almost always the least popular."
As I said before... let's see some studies if you're going to refer to them. I've lived in one of such universities that you've described, and I don't remember any such attitudes or surveys with such results, but even if I did, my anecdotal experience does not count as some sort of "evidence" of a general trend.

"The average person is neither anti-Classical or anti-Modern. What they crave are places that make them feel good. See Charles Montgomery’s The Happy City."
- I do not need a book to tell me that human beings would rather live in places that feel good rather than places that feel bad. The problem is that it's debatable what's objectively good and objectively bad, no matter how many urban prophets profess that they found the One Right Path while everyone else is a heretic. Still, thanks for the recommendation. I always look forward to expand my horizons on approaches to urban design and creating the best living spaces that we can. Of course, an open an honest debate between disagreeing parties (like the one you and I are involved in at the moment) is a step in the right direction.
This is where Mr. Massengale folded. On his blog, upon posting anything, your message will be visible only to you, captioned with "Your comment is awaiting moderation." The first message was approved within a couple of hours. It has been a few days, and my second post is still invisible on his page.

Mr. Massengale, I invite you to continue this discussion on an open forum where neither one of us holds approval power over the other's post.

Perhaps my second response was more adversarial than I realized and I deserved the silent treatment. If so, fellow forumers, please call me out on it.

I'm extending the same invitation to you at Skyscraperpage, another widely popular urban forum; this way, you have a choice of where to continue this discussion. I hope that you accept this opportunity instead of choosing against defending your statements once again.

Last edited by LeCom; October 7th, 2014 at 02:34 AM.
LeCom no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 7th, 2014, 02:35 AM   #13642
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028

__________________

VEGAN, bigreach liked this post
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2014, 02:40 AM   #13643
4npower
Rooftop Shooter
 
4npower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hanover, Pennsylvania/Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,003
Likes (Received): 989

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCom View Post
So here's my little saga of the week. Yours Truly, Lecom, goes head to head against Mr. John Massengale, an esteemed New Urbanist architect and author that, despite my respect for him, chose to block my second argument about 432 Park rather than address it. Fellow forumers, sorry for the upcoming wall of text. I'd be happy if you read the following debate, but if not, please scroll right past this post. I just wanted my second response to see the light on day on a public forum where every post does not require the blog author's approval.


TLDR
__________________

Atlantropa, iJosh liked this post
4npower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2014, 07:43 AM   #13644
Oasis-Bangkok
From Zero to Hero !!
 
Oasis-Bangkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15,708
Likes (Received): 50780



NZA_2505 by edwardhblake, on Flickr
__________________
Oasis-Bangkok no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2014, 09:44 AM   #13645
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDave View Post
I can still remember when the ATT Building was completed, and at the time I considered that building to be very Tall.
Oh you mean the Sony Tower. Yeah, still tall but everything in the hood looks small now.
__________________

Eric Offereins, Mplsuptown liked this post
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2014, 06:43 PM   #13646
LeCom
Registered User
 
LeCom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,396
Likes (Received): 698

LeCom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2014, 11:55 PM   #13647
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,493

That guy sounds like the Parisians who hated the Eiffel Tower in the 1890s.
__________________
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 12:10 AM   #13648
LeCom
Registered User
 
LeCom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,396
Likes (Received): 698

LeCom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 03:39 AM   #13649
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53450


NYC Lookout. by oscararestrepo, on Flickr



NYC Lookout. by oscararestrepo, on Flickr
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 06:15 AM   #13650
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,524
Likes (Received): 22553

432's prominence from the north is astounding. If you get a chance to take a look towards the city while crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge, it'll be the first tower you spot.


Driving Home by KaDeWeGirl, on Flickr
__________________
Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 07:41 AM   #13651
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

Yes! That's one of my favorite views of the city. You get everything: skyscapers, greenery, and the hudson river all in one. Amazing how much it's changed in the past few years.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 08:04 AM   #13652
ajbenius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 132
Likes (Received): 99

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11 View Post
432's prominence from the north is astounding. If you get a chance to take a look towards the city while crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge, it'll be the first tower you spot.


Driving Home by KaDeWeGirl, on Flickr
In almost every picture of NYC, the Empire States Building always seems like the dominant tower. It's cool that in this one, the ESB is buried in a sea of towers, while 432PA stands out. But when the other 57th Street buildings are complete, it'll have a lot of company. And also, imagine how a completed Hudson Yards complex would look from that angle.
__________________

onewtclover, iamtheSTIG, ElCrioyo liked this post
ajbenius no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 10:54 PM   #13653
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028


By me
__________________

Hudson11 liked this post

Last edited by onewtclover; October 8th, 2014 at 11:14 PM.
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 11:01 PM   #13654
th1
ambient
 
th1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brande
Posts: 108
Likes (Received): 614

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajbenius View Post
In almost every picture of NYC, the Empire States Building always seems like the dominant tower. It's cool that in this one, the ESB is buried in a sea of towers, while 432PA stands out. But when the other 57th Street buildings are complete, it'll have a lot of company. And also, imagine how a completed Hudson Yards complex would look from that angle.

I wonder if someone good at it could photoshop it in
__________________
Put on my raving shoes and I boarded a plane.
Touched down in the land where the skies were blue,
in the middle of the pouring rain.

onewtclover liked this post
th1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014, 11:10 PM   #13655
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,524
Likes (Received): 22553

ask for permission first. That global announcement is there for a reason, ya know.
Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2014, 12:05 AM   #13656
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11 View Post
432's prominence from the north is astounding. If you get a chance to take a look towards the city while crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge, it'll be the first tower you spot.


Driving Home by KaDeWeGirl, on Flickr

Those must be powerful lenses that chick is using, cuz I've been on the TZ many times and never had seen the city that clear from such a distance away from that bridge.
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2014, 12:12 AM   #13657
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,901
Likes (Received): 25154

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
Those must be powerful lenses that chick is using, cuz I've been on the TZ many times and never had seen the city that clear from such a distance away from that bridge.
That's definitely taken from the GW bridge and not the Tappan Zee
__________________

j-biz, bodegavendetta liked this post
streetscapeer está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2014, 12:30 AM   #13658
LondoniumLex
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Greenwich
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 2064

I saw this tower from the Whitestone Bridge today. It dominates the midtown skyline (at least when viewed from the east).
__________________

onewtclover liked this post
LondoniumLex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2014, 02:58 AM   #13659
Shaddorry
Futurologist
 
Shaddorry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hofstade-Aalst
Posts: 1,527
Likes (Received): 699

Musician Andre Rieu posted these pictures to his facebook page. You can see 432 barely topping out in the background.
Shaddorry no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2014, 03:16 AM   #13660
Trex-md
In Reason We Trust
 
Trex-md's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Maryland U.S. Of A
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 162

I'm curious as to how we can see 432 topping out, when one 57 wasn't even topped off at this point. Haha it's all good tho... Now I know what violinists did in their spare time in 2012-early 13
__________________
MOLON LABE

Shaddorry, streetscapeer liked this post
Trex-md no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
new york city, new york project, park avenue, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu