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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture > Classic Architecture

Classic Architecture Discussions on heritage buildings, monuments and landmarks.



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 June 18th, 2013, 03:24 PM   #281
Giorgio
Registered User
 
Giorgio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,677
Likes (Received): 480

It is madness that in 2013 we still have people who think it is ok to knock down beautiful historic buildings. Please stop this!!
__________________

erbse liked this post
Giorgio no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 18th, 2013, 05:21 PM   #282
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,231
Likes (Received): 57901

^ Totally agreed! Especially if we're talking about such gems that should be preserved.


This will vanish:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post


Time to bid farewell to 22 Thames Street, NYC.

Still, beyond my comprehension what's going on in central NYC/Manhattan.

Yeah, there's big money elsewhere in the world. But no one's tearing down valuable grand buildings in Paris e.g. to build a skyscraper. Money ain't everything here.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 05:32 PM   #283
musiccity
Retired Mod
 
musiccity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 18,088
Likes (Received): 15093

Certainly sad, but the reason it's happening is Manhattan is one of the most densely populated places in the World. Manhattan keeps growing both economically and in population, in order to keep up with the demand for space Manhattan has to resort to building up. The dilemma is that all space is Manhattan is entirely used up, so some pretty, historic low and mid rise buildings have to be demolished so larger, taller buildings can be built to meet the enormous demand for space on the island.

Still is sad though, but it's hard to prevent.
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

-Mark Twain
musiccity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 05:33 PM   #284
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,230
Likes (Received): 9777

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
.

Yeah, there's big money elsewhere in the world. But no one's tearing down valuable grand buildings in Paris e.g. to build a skyscraper. Money ain't everything here.

To be fair, they are in London so it's not only Manhatten that suffers from it.

Example:

The three buildings in the middle here have been ...


... Replaced with this one in the middle here:


I believe the original plans was to pull down the whole row, but this was thankfully scaled back.

I think the buildings on the other side of block is going to be demolished too: https://maps.google.no/maps?q=Piccad...,,0,-18.7&z=18

Last edited by Galro; June 18th, 2013 at 05:56 PM.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 05:41 PM   #285
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,230
Likes (Received): 9777

Quote:
Originally Posted by musiccity View Post
Certainly sad, but the reason it's happening is Manhattan is one of the most densely populated places in the World. Manhattan keeps growing both economically and in population, in order to keep up with the demand for space Manhattan has to resort to building up. The dilemma is that all space is Manhattan is entirely used up, so some pretty, historic low and mid rise buildings have to be demolished so larger, taller buildings can be built to meet the enormous demand for space on the island.

Still is sad though, but it's hard to prevent.
I don't understand why places like Jersey city do not get built up more properly to take their share of the increasing population.
__________________

erbse liked this post
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 06:28 PM   #286
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
I don't understand why places like Jersey city do not get built up more properly to take their share of the increasing population.
Its hard to convince people from Manhattan to move to Jersey City. Often, people are more inclined to move to the boroughs (particularly Brooklyn). That said, there has been substantial development in Jersey City in recent years and shows no sign of slowing down.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:13 PM   #287
bolg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 916
Likes (Received): 759

One of the arguments for demolishing is usually that more office space is needed down in the historical centre for the city to grow economically, but is there anything that actually proves that expanding the city outwards generates less economic growth than building taller in the historical centre?
__________________

erbse liked this post

Last edited by bolg; June 18th, 2013 at 07:53 PM.
bolg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:32 PM   #288
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,231
Likes (Received): 57901

^ A very good question here.

Judging from the development of many European cities, I'd say: There's no justification to demolish old downtowns/urban centers instead of focusing on a growing city with more density outside the main center.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:40 PM   #289
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

I actually found a surface parking lot in the FD yesterday. In my opinion, build a nice highrise there and have an underground parking lot beneath the building. Easy as that.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:42 PM   #290
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Judging from the development of many European cities, I'd say: There's no justification to demolish old downtowns/urban centers instead of focusing on a growing city with more density outside the main center.
Why do you keep bringing up Europe? I feel like you're just baiting a Europe vs. U.S. argument that I'm trying to avoid. I've lived in Europe and love it, but there are so many different influential factors that effect European cities than American cities. They are really hard to compare. These type of comments really don't belong in this thread IMO.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:46 PM   #291
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Europe's probably the best parallel to NY's architectural history. I'm sure he'd bring up an American city if there was one remotely similar in size and age.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:47 PM   #292
musiccity
Retired Mod
 
musiccity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 18,088
Likes (Received): 15093

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
I don't understand why places like Jersey city do not get built up more properly to take their share of the increasing population.
Jersey City? Ew.. lol
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

-Mark Twain
musiccity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 07:57 PM   #293
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.F.2. View Post
Europe's probably the best parallel to NY's architectural history. I'm sure he'd bring up an American city if there was one remotely similar in size and age.
Perhaps prior to WWII, however American cities and European cities have had very different histories since the war. Factors such as urban renewal, slum clearance, red lining, white flight, etc all had devastating consequences on American cities (even NYC) in the 1950s - 1970s. Drug wars, crime, the chronic underfunding of infrastructure shaped U.S. cities during the 1970s - 1990s. These factors played a major role in the catastrophic loss of historic architecture.

While many historic cities have experienced major turn arounds since the 1990s, they are still in a fierce interstate competition for jobs and commerce which unfortunately leads to the loss of historic architecture. Mayors, politicians and developers think they need to continually reinvent cities. Even this week, Rick Perry is taking a tour of NYC and Connecticut talking trash about the tax policies are here and trying to convince businesses to move to Texas. What this boils down to is that the U.S. has a very different economic and cultural environment to what you'll find in Europe (for better or worse). I'm not condoning any of these practices, I'm just stating how it is. Many of these factors lead to the unfortunate loss of amazing buildings like 22 Thames and the Drake Hotel.
__________________

erbse liked this post
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:20 PM   #294
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Yeah, I was speaking of pre-WWII (actually pre-WWI and even pre-20th Century) buildings because those are the ones being demolished so often. Chicago would be a great match if not for the fire in the late 19th Century. Lower Manhattan's setup dates back to the 17th Century Dutch colonists, so it clearly has plenty of European influence. No other major cities can really say that over here. Late 19th Century buildings were stacked against the East River side for transportation purposes linking it to DT Brooklyn. Because of this, 1900s and 1910s buildings were built to the West and North areas of the district. Once that area's density had clearly surpassed that of the East, new zoning permitted the '20s and '30s era skyscrapers for the East and central sections of the district. After that, '60s and '70s era internationalist skyscrapers either moved Northwest or South. Since then, developments have popped up everywhere land exists. I think that's a really natural way of maximizing space. It's really interesting stuff.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:27 PM   #295
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,230
Likes (Received): 9777

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Its hard to convince people from Manhattan to move to Jersey City. Often, people are more inclined to move to the boroughs (particularly Brooklyn). That said, there has been substantial development in Jersey City in recent years and shows no sign of slowing down.
The reason people rather chose Brooklyn over Jersey it's probably due to the poor public transportation connection with the later. If I'm not mistaken, then I believe it's only ferries and road bridges that connect Jersey city with New York. Is that right? Have anyone considered improving this with a subway link for example?

But regardless of the details involved, my point was simply that I think New York should try to become more multipolar - similar to London or Tokyo - rather than just continue to cram everything into Manhatten. As the space is quite limited there and it is not going to become better with time. Quite the opposite in fact.
__________________

erbse liked this post

Last edited by Galro; June 18th, 2013 at 11:36 PM.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:29 PM   #296
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

There was a nice PATH station before the WTC was destroyed. Right now there's only a temporary one while Silverstein gathers financing for the really nice one.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:36 PM   #297
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
The reason people rather chose Brooklyn over Jersey it's probably due to the poor public transportation connection with the later. If I'm not mistaken, then I believe it's only ferries and road bridges that connect Jersey city with New York. Is that right? Have anyone considered improved this with a subway link for example?
Actually the PATH train connects Manhattan to Jersey City (similar to the NYC Subway) as well as other Northern New Jersey cities. I believe it runs 24 hours a day as well.





Brooklyn is actually more popular because it is Brooklyn, which has become the heart of the creative scene in New York. Many people nowadays actually much prefer Brooklyn to Manhattan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
But regardless of the details involved, my point was simply that I think New York should try to become more multipolar - similar to London or Tokyo - rather than just continue to cram everything into Manhatten.
NYC is actually more multipolar than people realize. Its not to the same degree as Tokyo, however outer borough neighborhoods have been booming in recent decades and are quite vibrant.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:41 PM   #298
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.F.2. View Post
There was a nice PATH station before the WTC was destroyed. Right now there's only a temporary one while Silverstein gathers financing for the really nice one.
The new PATH station is being financed by the Federal Government and the Port Authority of NY/NJ. Construction is well underway, in fact it is now above ground.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2013, 11:43 PM   #299
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Yeah, it's cost is nearly $3.5 billion, so it's no small amount.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2013, 01:45 AM   #300
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Don't worry got that covered. A mere 240 properties. And before you say, it's only a proposal, an area just to the south was just rezoned to allow for higher density buildings, and the basic agreement was that it would only be rezoned if this went through, along with another expansion of a historic neighborhood further south.
LOL I have no idea what you're talking about...

Quote:
The same argument could've been made about any area that is now landmarked anywhere in the city 30 years ago. When my parents moved to the West Village in the 70s it was a dump, and you could've said the same thing. No need to landmark anything, no one would ever develop this neighborhood. Now look at it.
Regardless, it won't get any better with the type of people who live there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Its actually pretty transparent: its politics. Both 22 Thames and the former American Stock Exchange building were bought by one developer with plans to redevelop and build a tower. It was determined that the American Stock Exchange building was a landmark and 22 Thames could be demo'd. Not only is the ASE building newer, it also isn't as aesthetically pleasing (IMO). It boils down to the fact that Bloomberg's team didn't want to piss off his developer brethren. It really is a shame and a big loss to the neighborhood. There are a few other really nice buildings in the immediate vicinity, however they aren't landmarked either.
The tower could have been built "on top" of the American Stock Exchange Building. It would have made a great facade.

Also, understand Bloomberg has absolutely no genuine interest in the city's economic growth. All he wants to do within the remainder of his term is ban Super Size cups and babby formula.

Quote:
Overall, this is good news but I hope they don't kill the funkiness of this neighborhood. Landmarks is strict with storefronts, etc - this will be a challenge for future businesses.
Yuck...

Quote:
Originally Posted by musiccity View Post
Certainly sad, but the reason it's happening is Manhattan is one of the most densely populated places in the World. Manhattan keeps growing both economically and in population, in order to keep up with the demand for space Manhattan has to resort to building up. The dilemma is that all space is Manhattan is entirely used up, so some pretty, historic low and mid rise buildings have to be demolished so larger, taller buildings can be built to meet the enormous demand for space on the island.
Such cliche statements have no logic in most of the cases which have been brought up in this thread. As I said before, if the city wants to build "up," it should encourage developers to demolish crummy low-rises before even considering beautiful buildings like the Drake Hotel, 22 Thames, and potentially the Roosevelt Hotel.

Actually, the West Village has a lot of insignificant buildings at great locations. If developers were allowed to build there, Manhattan would be much more consistent and historical high-density districts wouldn't be so constrained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
To be fair, they are in London so it's not only Manhatten that suffers from it.

Example:

The three buildings in the middle here have been ...


... Replaced with this one in the middle here:


I believe the original plans was to pull down the whole row, but this was thankfully scaled back.

I think the buildings on the other side of block is going to be demolished too: https://maps.google.no/maps?q=Piccad...,,0,-18.7&z=18
Honestly, that's not too bad...
__________________

erbse liked this post

Last edited by RegentHouse; June 19th, 2013 at 01:51 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
nyc photos

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 06:22 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