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 19th, 2013, 03:21 AM   #301
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
LOL I have no idea what you're talking about...
Too bad, because the city is doing exactly what you say they aren't in Manhattan.

Council Committee Approves Hudson Square Rezoning Plan
Wednesday, March 13, 2013, by Hana Alberts

"After several delays, the City Council's zoning and franchises subcommittee unanimously passed the Hudson Square rezoning proposal this morning in a 9-0 vote...

... In addition, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, which had launched a full-scale campaign urging the Council not to permit the rezoning without also landmarking the South Village (which lies to the north and east of Hudson Square), scored a victory, too. Council members won a promise from the Landmarks Preservation Commission that the latter will vote on the section of the South Village north of Houston Street before the end of the year, and complete a survey of the southern part by then, too..."


Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
...Regardless, it won't get any better with the type of people who live there...
lol...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
...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...
That's why he had the Hudson Yards rezoned twice, and pushed tax incentives to get that area going economically to get businesses out there? Oh, and he is also pushing very hard to rezone the largest business district on Earth to allow for larger office buildings to, wait for it, spur economic growth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
...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...
Before we get ahead of ourselves, Roosevelt Hotel? Landmarks is gonna have their way with East Midtown before rezoning goes through, so that is currently not in danger of being demolished.

And those lots in the West Village are being filled up, by density levels that are appropriate for the neighborhoods infrastructure; mass transit, schools, police and fire coverage, etc.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 19th, 2013, 04:24 AM   #302
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
LOL I have no idea what you're talking about...
This seems increasingly obvious...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
The tower could have been built "on top" of the American Stock Exchange Building. It would have made a great facade.
Its actually not allowed to build towers on top of Landmarked buildings in NYC, so this would have never happened. The only case where this has happened was the Hearst Tower, which was a special case. You could preserve a facade and then build a tower on top / behind a non-landmarked tower, however this almost never happens because its so cost prohibitive in NYC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
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.
Complete B.S. Bloomberg is the champion of economic development. Hudson Yards rezoning, Roosevelt Island Tech Campus, Midtown East rezoning, Staten Island Ferris Wheel, Coney Island rehabilitation are all examples of Bloomberg's active economic development initiatives.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2013, 10:34 AM   #303
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58063

Something to think about for everyone in this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by yabbes View Post


"I believe [modern classical architecture] is appropriate for a modern city, particularly cities like London which have beautiful historic buildings in them. A lot of architects are just putting up these rather hideous glass buildings which could be anywhere; Taipei or Kuala Lumpur etc... I get very sad to see these fragmented streets." - Francis Terry, 2012 (Architect and son of the renowned architect Quinlan Terry)

Traditional buildings are often as important an indication of national identity as are language and ethnicity.

"Architecture functions as a way of forming a national identity. It's a very meaningful field" - Marek Krawczyński (Architect and pianist)
__________________
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 19th, 2013, 10:38 AM   #304
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58063

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.
Exactly. There just isn't anything to compare with NYC in North America.

For South America I could bring up Mexico City, but it isn't quite as developed - but despite its enormous growth, it managed to keep the main portion of its centuries old historical center, thus its architectural identity.
__________________
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 19th, 2013, 10:45 AM   #305
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58063

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. As the space is quite limited there and it is not going to become better with time. Quite the opposite in fact.
This is one of the main points I want to make in this thread.

New York has the space, it's just not using it properly.

Manhattan can definitely need some air to breathe, too. There's skyscraper canyons all around already and surely they won't stop to grow; but for the city as a whole it'd be more healthy to focus on more growth elsewhere.
__________________
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 19th, 2013, 03:51 PM   #306
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Exactly. There just isn't anything to compare with NYC in North America.

For South America I could bring up Mexico City, but it isn't quite as developed - but despite its enormous growth, it managed to keep the main portion of its centuries old historical center, thus its architectural identity.
Mexico City is in North America. Look at a map.

Furthermore, its really hard to compare New York City with Mexico City - not only are they are drastically different economically, politically and culturally - Mexico City isn't nearly as land locked as New York City.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
This is one of the main points I want to make in this thread.

New York has the space, it's just not using it properly.

Manhattan can definitely need some air to breathe, too. There's skyscraper canyons all around already and surely they won't stop to grow; but for the city as a whole it'd be more healthy to focus on more growth elsewhere.
The vast majority of growth is happening outside of Manhattan. A recent article in DNAinfo New York pointed out that that three quarters of the City's new residential construction is actually happening in Brooklyn and Queens.

Yes, Manhattan is center of business in the city, but its actually the third largest borough in the City with 1.6 million people. Both Brooklyn and Queens have more residents and have higher population densities than any other city in the U.S. with maybe the exception of San Francisco. Each borough also each has several nodes of activity - Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg (Brooklyn), Astoria (Queens), Long Island City (Queens), Flushing (Queens), Fordham Road (Bronx). So New York is more polycentric than people give it credit for...
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2013, 05:16 PM   #307
musiccity
Retired Mod
 
musiccity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 18,088
Likes (Received): 15099

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Exactly. There just isn't anything to compare with NYC in North America.

For South America I could bring up Mexico City, but it isn't quite as developed - but despite its enormous growth, it managed to keep the main portion of its centuries old historical center, thus its architectural identity.
New York isn't going to lose it's architectural identity, even though demand requires building up, the city would never allow it.
__________________
“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 19th, 2013, 05:23 PM   #308
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by musiccity View Post
New York isn't going to lose it's architectural identity, even though demand requires building up, the city would never allow it.
Correct. Large portions of the city fall within protected historic districts (in blue), moreso than most other major American cities I would argue.

image hosted on flickr
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2013, 05:33 PM   #309
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58063

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Mexico City is in North America. Look at a map.
In Europe, people tend to categorize only Canada and USA as N-America, while Mexico is often referred to as Central American or even South American, mainly because of its cultural ties.

Regular map including Mexico as Central / Middle American:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...merica-pol.jpg


Anyways, I won't make a big deal of it further. Regions in Europe can be discussed just as controversially (Central Europe and Eastern Europe being really tough to define).
__________________
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 20th, 2013, 05:38 PM   #310
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58063

Quote:
Originally Posted by musiccity View Post
New York isn't going to lose it's architectural identity
It already is, with many historical gems disappearing since the 1940s.

Well, if you'd merely define NY's architectural identity by just being vertical, you're of course right, it won't lose but gain "identity" in this regard.
But so does Hong Kong, Chicago, Beijing, Dubai, Moscow, any friggin' bigger city on the planet...

All turning into one big Coruscant? Rather lame.

What could be a prospect for NYC to actually gain architectural identity with going up would be a New Art Deco movement.

We wouldn't have this discussion if NYC was building timeless, sleak and beautiful instead of fast, greedy, boxy and globally exchangeable when going up.

While of course there are good examples for New Art Deco in NYC, they're rather sparse in overall construction.
__________________
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 20th, 2013, 06:38 PM   #311
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,506

NY lost so many of its older historic buildings and replaced them with art-deco back in the 30s. I'd say that took a bit more of its historic culture. Then every city started copying NY and building art deco absolutely everywhere. Many of them were, in fact, rip-offs of the originals, like anti-modernists call modern buildings today. Look in any older American city and, I'll bet, you'll find a bunch of art deco midrises that were built because it was the fashion back then.

In the same way that when I think of fresh, clean modernist buildings, I think of NY. International Style is also a part of NY's culture. After all, that's pretty much where it all started, with Lever House. Although, yes, other cities wanted some Modernism of their own, because that was the fashion back then, but it's certainly not as well known as it is in NY.

The point is, you can't simply say one style from a certain time period (that is older then you) is the basis for the architectural culture of a city.
__________________
Check out my band, Till I Conquer!

dipstraughtnia liked this post

Last edited by ThatOneGuy; June 20th, 2013 at 06:53 PM.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2013, 08:46 PM   #312
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
In Europe, people tend to categorize only Canada and USA as N-America, while Mexico is often referred to as Central American or even South American, mainly because of its cultural ties.
Anyways, I won't make a big deal of it further. Regions in Europe can be discussed just as controversially (Central Europe and Eastern Europe being really tough to define).
Its not really controversial, geographically Mexico is part of North America. They called it the "North American Free Trade Agreement" (economic agreement between Canada - U.S. - Mexico) for a reason. Anyone who says its part of South America is completely wrong. If you said "Latin America", which is a far more general term - I wouldn't disagree with you. However parts of the U.S. are arguably part of "Latin America" these days too (Puerto Rico, portions of Miami, portions of border states), so its a pretty vague term.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2013, 08:58 PM   #313
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
The point is, you can't simply say one style from a certain time period (that is older then you) is the basis for the architectural culture of a city.
Well said. It is truly heartbreaking that so many beautiful structures have been razed over the years, however on the other hand the culture of New York is constantly evolving. You can't pinpoint the true New York at a particular period of time. Also if you look at all the misguided policies over the years as well as the horrible blight and decay that existed in the 1970s - 1990s, its remarkable that so much of the city remains. IMO, New York is moving in a positive direction... but what the hell do I know, I only live here.
__________________

L.A.F.2., musiccity liked this post
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2013, 09:05 PM   #314
LouDagreat
High in the sky
 
LouDagreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 150

As much as I believe certain buildings and districts should be preserved for their unique architecture, at the same time I believe the city has to move on and allow for newer more dense construction. Some buildings on their own are just too precious to tear down. However not every old building is worthy of preservation. Its a case by case basis. Its understandable the wave of preservation when what is proposed to replace architectural gems are souless, bland nondetailed buildings.
LouDagreat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2013, 01:20 AM   #315
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Honestly, when the vast majority of buildings are soulless modern boxes and cardboard country houses, and on top of that, the majority of historic structures have been destroyed, we must work to protect what is still left of these neighborhoods that are a true place and not another soulless development, or office tower. I would advocate for preserving as much as possible, If not all standing structures.
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation

Feel The Bern #2016
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2013, 07:05 AM   #316
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,216
Likes (Received): 771

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Too bad, because the city is doing exactly what you say they aren't in Manhattan.

Council Committee Approves Hudson Square Rezoning Plan
Wednesday, March 13, 2013, by Hana Alberts

"After several delays, the City Council's zoning and franchises subcommittee unanimously passed the Hudson Square rezoning proposal this morning in a 9-0 vote...

... In addition, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, which had launched a full-scale campaign urging the Council not to permit the rezoning without also landmarking the South Village (which lies to the north and east of Hudson Square), scored a victory, too. Council members won a promise from the Landmarks Preservation Commission that the latter will vote on the section of the South Village north of Houston Street before the end of the year, and complete a survey of the southern part by then, too..."
As you're repeating yourself like a broken record about the low-profile neighborhoods in NYC being preserved instead of a fair amount of historical GRAND buildings within BUSY districts, which everybody who agrees with us are talking about, I also will.

Why would any of this ever be considered historical?

http://gvshp.org/documents/images/Bl...treetscape.JPG

Compared to:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/manhattanhotel1.jpg


http://www.timeshutter.com/sites/def...rtlandt-NB.jpg

and...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mlPoGU4VqS.../s1600/met.jpg

If you want to counteract me, post news about 61 Broadway or 37 Wall Street being landmarked. If so, maybe I'll change my "sky is falling" mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Its actually not allowed to build towers on top of Landmarked buildings in NYC, so this would have never happened. The only case where this has happened was the Hearst Tower,which was a special case. You could preserve a facade and then build a tower on top / behind a non-landmarked tower, however this almost never happens because its so cost prohibitive in NYC.
I assume this is from the whole Breuer Tower debacle. Building on top of a historic building is better than wiping it from existence. It's cost-prohibitive concerning anything in the city because of all the red tape, and if NYC wants to compete with London and Shanghai, it should at least learn from them. Even Shanghai preserves its historic buildings, while continuing to build towers with inspiring architecture:



Quote:
Complete B.S. Bloomberg is the champion of economic development. Hudson Yards rezoning, Roosevelt Island Tech Campus, Midtown East rezoning, Staten Island Ferris Wheel, Coney Island rehabilitation are all examples of Bloomberg's active economic development initiatives.
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned his successful mass media company with a handsome Cesar Pelli headquarters. Too bad that's about the only right thing he did. I wouldn't be surprised if executives in his own company criticize him all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
image hosted on flickr
Apart from the Upper East and West Sides, and Flatiron District, most of the landmarked Manhattan areas are swaths of low-density hippie-shack neighborhoods where growth must branch out, and would have met the wrecking ball in the first place if the economy didn't crash in 1929.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Exactly. There just isn't anything to compare with NYC in North America.
It's not necessarily a matter of NYC being unique, because it shares many characteristics with places like Philadelphia and Boston, also settled during the European colonial era. However, as it's the face of urbanity for the United States, it must represent the best of everything. Still, it's architectural heritage, in this case, chiefly neoclassical cathedrals of commerce, must be the main blueprint for the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
It already is, with many historical gems disappearing since the 1940s.

Well, if you'd merely define NY's architectural identity by just being vertical, you're of course right, it won't lose but gain "identity" in this regard.
But so does Hong Kong, Chicago, Beijing, Dubai, Moscow, any friggin' bigger city on the planet...

All turning into one big Coruscant? Rather lame.

What could be a prospect for NYC to actually gain architectural identity with going up would be a New Art Deco movement.

We wouldn't have this discussion if NYC was building timeless, sleak and beautiful instead of fast, greedy, boxy and globally exchangeable when going up.

While of course there are good examples for New Art Deco in NYC, they're rather sparse in overall construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
NY lost so many of its older historic buildings and replaced them with art-deco back in the 30s. I'd say that took a bit more of its historic culture. Then every city started copying NY and building art deco absolutely everywhere. Many of them were, in fact, rip-offs of the originals, like anti-modernists call modern buildings today. Look in any older American city and, I'll bet, you'll find a bunch of art deco midrises that were built because it was the fashion back then.

In the same way that when I think of fresh, clean modernist buildings, I think of NY. International Style is also a part of NY's culture. After all, that's pretty much where it all started, with Lever House. Although, yes, other cities wanted some Modernism of their own, because that was the fashion back then, but it's certainly not as well known as it is in NY.

The point is, you can't simply say one style from a certain time period (that is older then you) is the basis for the architectural culture of a city.
As I'd much rather see a resurgence in neoclassical skyscrapers (like what Robert A. M. Stern is doing, but on a larger scale), I actually agree more with the latter. Wall Street used to be far more beautiful before the late-1920s, when asymmetrical setback Art Deco towers took over like tumors. 60 Wall Street is the ideal type of architecture I'd like to see.

Like International Style skyscrapers (which were around elsewhere far before the Lever House), Art Deco can be found anywhere, despite constantly being associated with New York City.

At least Coruscant had somewhat ornate structures. With the way NYC is going, 432 Park Avenue will be like a telephone pole in a field of flowers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouDagreat View Post
As much as I believe certain buildings and districts should be preserved for their unique architecture, at the same time I believe the city has to move on and allow for newer more dense construction. Some buildings on their own are just too precious to tear down. However not every old building is worthy of preservation. Its a case by case basis. Its understandable the wave of preservation when what is proposed to replace architectural gems are souless, bland nondetailed buildings.
Understand it's not about the city "moving on." It's about making acceptable sacrifices. Classical apartment houses replacing low-rise buildings in the Upper East and West Side, or even Radio Row for the WTC are good examples. Replacing pre-1916 skyscrapers with boxes are not, and will never.
__________________

erbse liked this post

Last edited by RegentHouse; June 28th, 2013 at 07:21 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2013, 03:54 PM   #317
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,457
Likes (Received): 21144

As we live in a global era with global flows of people, knowledge, ideas and goods, we should strive to create a completely de-localized architectural style where cities are defined by their economies, their knowledge production, their cultural output, not for their buildings. Thus, I welcome the trend of global cities becoming increasingly like one another when it comes to new buildings. The less one can tell "which city is this" looking at one specific building, the better. We should aim to erase quixotesque and idiosyncratic characterizations of cities in favor of global styles that can be plopped anywhere, with only adaptations concerning weather and the likes.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2013, 04:29 PM   #318
Chimer
friendly gargoyle
 
Chimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,481
Likes (Received): 2487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
As we live in a global era with global flows of people, knowledge, ideas and goods, we should strive to create a completely de-localized architectural style where cities are defined by their economies, their knowledge production, their cultural output, not for their buildings. Thus, I welcome the trend of global cities becoming increasingly like one another when it comes to new buildings. The less one can tell "which city is this" looking at one specific building, the better. We should aim to erase quixotesque and idiosyncratic characterizations of cities in favor of global styles that can be plopped anywhere, with only adaptations concerning weather and the likes.
I don't understand how from "global flows of people, knowledge, ideas and goods" (which is good) you came to idea that cities should look the same, without any historical and cultural traditions. I don't see any sense here, sorry It looks totally wrong for me
__________________

erbse, CNB30 liked this post
Chimer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2013, 07:59 PM   #319
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58063

Don't listen Suburbanist too much, he's trolling almost any classic architecture thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
we should strive to create a completely de-localized architectural style
We already have. It's called modernism, international style, brutalism, deconstructivism, concrete-boxism etc.

And it failed miserably in creating urban, lively, livable and aesthetically pleasing places people love to go to and stay.

I'm completely with RegentHouse on this, we need a continuation of local styles and traditions, refined with interesting innovations and lovely details. Postmodernism delivered some very interesting aspects to consider. This combined with New Urbanism, some Traditionalism/Neo-Historicism, Art Deco, Art Nouveau or Expressionism - that's the way to go.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥

Chimer, AnOldBlackMarble liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2013, 08:17 PM   #320
BarbaricManchurian
来了就是深圳人
 
BarbaricManchurian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Worcester
Posts: 5,501
Likes (Received): 6882

Well I just visited the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn this weekend. Surely didn't see any lack of historical buildings anywhere. There's so many everywhere that the vast majority aren't even "preserved" or well-maintained, just part of the regular gritty urban fabric. Very few cities worldwide can compare.
BarbaricManchurian 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 05:48 PM.


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