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 July 3rd, 2013, 09:06 AM   #341
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Please compare the following recent towers in global cities, and tell us again...

Shanghai:

http://globalinksnewswire.com/wp-con...-Rendering.jpg

London:


New York City:

ttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SMp5fO8kBlY...8-43-45-am.png

Your statement is ridiculously partisan.
Sorry, I don't want to be rude, but you can't cherry pick some projects just to prove your point, as if in Shanghai and London any new building was a masterpiece... please...
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that Drake Hotel shouldn't have been demolished to build a bland, tall box: Rafael Vinoly could have designed something more interesting, in fact.
But that doesn't change the fact that in NYC countless prewar buildings are well preserved, and several amazing projects are getting built, such as the Hudson Yards.



You can insist on writing that any prewar building in NYC is about to get demolished for new unremarkable buildings, but that isn't true.
Get real.
__________________

sbarn, koolkid liked this post

Last edited by hordak1975; July 3rd, 2013 at 09:13 AM.
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 5th, 2013, 06:29 AM   #342
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Had your mentality prevailed since late 19th century, mid-town Manhattan would have never get any skyscraper, all that would be left there would be low-rises of the pre-elevator era. Lower Manhattan would look like a late medieval lesser area with colonial buildings.

For the new to come, the old must go. That is my say. We should save a handful of old buildings for the sake of historical preservation, but let 99% of everything to jsut be replaced as part of life.
No, my mentality would have kept the best buildings of each generation, and replaced inferior ones in a consistent and systematic manner, creating a world class city. Your mentality is the reason many American cities have very little surviving high-profile historic buildings, and instead a "handful" of pioneer-era shacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaricManchurian View Post
Doesn't matter. There's so many that tearing a few down here and there isn't a problem in New York. Some may miss the beauty lost but there is still ton left and who is to say contemporary and gritty historical can't be beautiful? Cities are living growing organisms that change. NYC has done an amazing job preserving vast areas of historical structures and there are vast amounts outside the historical districts too. NYC has plenty of "unique flair" left and is utterly unique on Earth.
Organic grittiness is not beautiful, and never will be. People who think so seriously have something wrong with them, shouldn't be modern in society, and might as well live in their own excrement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
NYC should have continued to develop Art Deco, Art Nouveau and Expressionism
into organic shapes soaring into the sky.
Too bad the zoning law vanished in post-war times.
Damn those modernists taking away sunlight from the streets and beauty from the buildings!
Again, I actually find the 1916 zoning laws did as much harm to the city as modernist buildings with plazas. Many setback wedding cake buildings, both Art Deco and International Style, have replaced many upright early skyscrapers which had beautiful spires and cornices. I bet maybe skyscrapers consequently today look like toothpicks as another loophole to such a stupid antiquated law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
I actually think you're missing the point. If you think the unique flair of New York were grandiose buildings from the late-nineteenth / early-twentieth centuries (many of which were spectacular architecturally), you don't know much about the city. Its as simple as that. The "remote [censored]" are just as much a part of New York as your beloved palaces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaricManchurian View Post
New York's "unique flair" is its unique urban form which isn't found anywhere else on Earth. Dense gritty brick walk-ups which are found everywhere in all parts of the 4 urban boroughs (never visited Staten Island). The architecture is nice but not the focal point as opposed to a city like Boston. The extreme vibrancy and huge numbers of people everywhere are what matter more, with the buildings more of a backdrop than the main attraction. The boroughs are extremely dense extensions of Manhattan well served by the subway, not "remote [censored]". Even if Manhattan was completely leveled places like the Bronx and Brooklyn are "New York" as all [censored]. And Manhattan is really well-preserved too. Unfortunately some true gems were lost (I would agree about Penn and Singer) but the minor historical buildings being demolished today are a small drop in the sea of late 19th/early 20th century buildings that is New York.
Well maybe we like the rich and grand aspects of the city better than your West Side Story interpretation. Call me heartless, but I favor Wall Street and the Upper East Side as opposed to small family businesses, ethnic diversity, and gangs. You sound like a cultural Marxist.

Even if the other boroughs are part of New York City, isn't it a good idea to think of each area from an individual perspective? Just because Brooklyn has a lot of historic structures doesn't mean Manhattan can be leveled. It's the same logic as a moronic statement said several pages ago justifying the destruction because Europe already has old buildings.

Also, since when is architecture Boston's main focal point? Boston and Philadelphia's focal point is Colonial American Heritage. NYC's is the skyscraper. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hordak1975 View Post
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that Drake Hotel shouldn't have been demolished to build a bland, tall box: Rafael Vinoly could have designed something more interesting, in fact.
But that doesn't change the fact that in NYC countless prewar buildings are well preserved, and several amazing projects are getting built, such as the Hudson Yards.
Hudson Yards is a major disappointment. It was supposed to be much taller until the height was constantly chopped at the last minute. 432 Park Avenue is the best representation of the majority of new NYC skyscrapers being mediocre, especially because it's poised to become the city's tallest building, all because of Durst's flea market tactics.

Last edited by RegentHouse; August 2nd, 2013 at 04:58 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2013, 11:10 AM   #343
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Hudson Yards is a major disappointment. It was supposed to be much taller until the height was constantly chopped at the last minute. 432 Park Avenue is the best representation of the majority of new NYC skyscrapers being mediocre, especially because it's poised to become the city's tallest building, all because of Durst's flea market tactics.
First of all, this is just your opinion: I think Hudson Yards is an amazing redevelopment project...so far the architecture that has been built along the High Line is absolutely stunning.
I guess - once the High Line, Manhattan West, Hudson Yards, the revitalization of the Garment District and (hopefully) the new Moynihan/Pennsylvania Station are completed - that area would be mindblowing.
Don't misunderstand me: I agree that NYC should do more when it comes to historical preservation and that overall London is building more groundbreaking architecture, but if you still insist that in NYC any new building is mediocre (anything in London is on par with the Shard? Come on...) and any prewar building is getting demolished (while the historical districts and lanmarked buildings are getting expanded) I guess you have never been in The Big Apple on the past 20 years.
Sorry.

Last edited by hordak1975; July 5th, 2013 at 11:41 AM.
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2013, 11:18 AM   #344
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Well maybe we like the rich and grand aspects of the city better than your West Side Story interpretation. Call me heartless, but I favor Wall Street and the Upper East Side as opposed to small family businesses, ethnic diversity, and gangs. You sound like a cultural Marxist.
__________________

CNB30 liked this post
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2013, 09:06 PM   #345
BarbaricManchurian
来了就是深圳人
 
BarbaricManchurian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Worcester
Posts: 5,497
Likes (Received): 6878

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Also, since when is architecture Boston's main focal point? Boston and Philadelphia's focal point is Colonial American Heritage. NYC's is the skyscraper. It's as simple as that.
LOL. If you know anything about Boston the Colonial-era stuff is just a few buildings along a tourist path. Most of the urban core was developed in the late 19th / early 20th century fitting in a certain style that was very grand. Of course Boston's main urban focal point is its architecture! That's what the whole Back Bay, South End, Beacon Hill, North End, etc are all about! Most didn't even exist during the colonial era and the ones that did have drastically changed from that era. The Colonial stuff is really just for tourists. Boston is as a dense, functioning, historic, architecturally vibrant example of a small city as there can be.
BarbaricManchurian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2013, 10:43 PM   #346
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Hah Boston is architecturally one of my favorite cities, and I think colonial architecture is UGLY (I love Victorian architecture).
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

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

Feel The Bern #2016
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2013, 05:30 AM   #347
hateman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695
Likes (Received): 1798

New York is in very little danger of losing its heritage or unique flair. That was more of an issue in the Postwar era/the era of Robert Moses/"slum" clearance/urban renewal/urban blight, ie. 1950s-1980s. Whole neighborhoods were being demolished for expressways or towers in the park public housing. Plenty of gorgeous old building stock was rotting or going up in flames. Nothing these days will ever match that level of destruction.

Instead of mainly focussing on real estate in Midtown or Lower Manhattan, there are an abundance of signs that the "New York identity" is at its strongest in decades: brownstones from Harlem to Bed-Stuy are becoming desirable real estate again; the most lucrative condominium development in NYC history (maybe the world) was 15 CPW (and Ramsa, the firm responsible, has 2, possibly 3 major projects in the works); they demolished the 1970s defaced Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium and put up a limestone stadium and a brick stadium in the spirit of Ebbet's field; MSG was just denied a perpetual lease, opening up the possibility that Penn Station can be redeveloped in 10 years; lavish condo conversions of pre-war stock (Apthorp, Ralph Walker towers, Salvation Army at Gramercy, International Toy, several on UES) command huge prices; etc. etc. etc.

The current market clearly favors the imagined heritage look of NYC, this encourages developers to build in that style. Smaller scale developments around New York, particularly the High Line and the Far West Side have begun to follow an emerging modern and classic New York style. Look at 150 Charles, 200 Eleventh Avenue, Morris Adjmi Architects, Cary Tamarkin & Co., 500 W. 21st street, the Viceroy Hotel. Now larger scale, lower profile developments like the Greenpoint waterfront are following that gritty/refined style.

New York is even exporting its particular style. Ramsa's office building in Hong Kong set a commercial real estate record, and it has several major projects in secondary Chinese cities like Dalian and Xiamen, all in an updated 1930s New York style. Such projects will inevitably inspire similar buildings.

So the globalization trend isn't always one way. New York's traditional architecture continues to be a force in globalization in the face of the usual glass and metal suspects.

Of course there are people, planners, and developers in NYC who want it to look like Copenhagen or Rotterdam (the Hudson Yards towers look suspiciously like an old MVRDV proposal for the NYC Olympic village). Of course plenty of crap is going up, often replacing pre-war buildings. But the New York look will continue as long as the market supports it, and considering the most exclusive and aspirational apartments in NYC remain Rosario Candela or Emery Roth limestone co-ops on CPW, and 5th or Park ave. (not one57 or 432 Park ave.), people will continue to copy them. We've yet to see a major, brand-new traditional office building. Maybe it's not economically viable, or maybe we just need one developer to show that it can be a runaway success.
__________________

NUMERATZI liked this post
hateman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2013, 11:26 PM   #348
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Quote:
Originally Posted by hateman View Post
We've yet to see a major, brand-new traditional office building. Maybe it's not economically viable, or maybe we just need one developer to show that it can be a runaway success.
i bet we could see one soon, after all, at one time something like this would have been seen as too un-modern

__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

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

Feel The Bern #2016
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2013, 03:09 AM   #349
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Landlords take aim at rampant landmarking

BY MATT CHABAN
JULY 11, 2013 1:30 P.M.

"...That's the contention of the Real Estate Board of New York, which issued a report Thursday that finds 27.7% of Manhattan is now landmarked. At one-in-four buildings, the borough has more protected properties than ever..."
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2013, 02:30 PM   #350
hateman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695
Likes (Received): 1798

I'd love to hear how they came to the number 27.7%. 27.7% of what? Buildings? Acreage? It doesn't matter since the figure will be repeated ad infinitum.
hateman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2013, 11:16 PM   #351
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Landlords take aim at rampant landmarking

BY MATT CHABAN
JULY 11, 2013 1:30 P.M.

"...That's the contention of the Real Estate Board of New York, which issued a report Thursday that finds 27.7% of Manhattan is now landmarked. At one-in-four buildings, the borough has more protected properties than ever..."
That's surprisingly low (In my opinion). I am happy that so much of the city is land marked, the buildings there are of a true value, and deserve landmark protection, Instead of being loosely demolished as many other historic buildings in places like Chicago, Detroit, etc.
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

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

Feel The Bern #2016
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2013, 03:18 AM   #352
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by hateman View Post
I'd love to hear how they came to the number 27.7%. 27.7% of what? Buildings? Acreage? It doesn't matter since the figure will be repeated ad infinitum.
"... That's the contention of the Real Estate Board of New York, which issued a report Thursday that finds 27.7% of Manhattan is now landmarked. At one-in-four buildings, the borough has more protected properties than ever..."
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2013, 02:19 AM   #353
hateman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 695
Likes (Received): 1798

I don't mean to be a pedant, but this is a perfect example of why you should never take a supplied figure at face value. 1/4 buildings is a particularly misleading number. A more useful figure is buildable area. "Buildings" could include anything, including active churches, or other cultural sites (university buildings, museums, administrative buildings, monuments, decorative towers, etc.), or buildings set within parks and campuses, that wouldn't or couldn't be developed anyway. Many landmarked buildings, particularly rowhouses, also have relatively small footprints. So while 1/4 buildings might be landmarked, those buildings likely take up a significantly smaller total footprint than that figure suggests.

Never let other people draw conclusions for you.
__________________

CNB30 liked this post
hateman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2013, 02:20 PM   #354
adadeleon
Registered User
 
adadeleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 109
Likes (Received): 10

So are there enough areas to build modern residential buildings. I do love the landmark buildings but
New
Is
New. No roaches.
adadeleon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2013, 01:35 AM   #355
Tyco75
Orgulloso de ser TICO
 
Tyco75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: La Uruca, San Josť
Posts: 4,771
Likes (Received): 504

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Nice pic.
Tyco75 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2013, 02:40 AM   #356
Adde
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 713
Likes (Received): 464

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
There are also widely newer old towns in Europe, like that one of Stockholm mentioned, that were largely created when American cities were also already growing.
Stockholm's Old Town is actually medieval, founded around 1250 AD.
Adde no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2013, 02:53 AM   #357
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Quote:
Originally Posted by adadeleon View Post
So are there enough areas to build modern residential buildings. I do love the landmark buildings but
New
Is
New. No roaches.
New is new, and old is old, what's the point

Anyway, the architectural value of an old brownstone, or cast iron building, is ten times that of anything new.
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

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

Feel The Bern #2016

Indictable liked this post
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2013, 08:23 AM   #358
ajs0503
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
These are the reasons I opened this thread, not your random brickboxes:


Old Penn Station, torn down in the 1960s.

Von: http://www.nycvintageimages.com/site...n-nyc-1410.jpg


Singer Building from 1908, once the highest skyscraper in the world. Torn down in 1968 to make way for the soulless gritty box of One Liberty Plaza.

image hosted on flickr

Singer Building (King's Views of New York) by NYCDreamin, on Flickr

Same here:
City Investing Building of 1908, just next to the Singer.

image hosted on flickr

City Investing Building (King's Views of New York) by NYCDreamin, on Flickr
While your concern regarding the preservation of New York's old buildings is commendable, it doesn't seem like you quite understand the history of American historical preservation. Individual landmarking, historical districts, and historical preservation organizations were largely non-existant prior to the 1960s. The buildings you referenced above were demolished before 1970. While a few buildings like the Drake unfortunately fall through the cracks from time to time, I doubt if we'll ever see again the large scale destruction of nineneenth and early twenty century architecture that occurred between 1950-1980.

So while I think preservationists in New York should still be concerned regarding historical preservation (especially considering the midtown rezoning proposal), I don't think the city is in any danger of "sacrificing it's heritage and unique flair". Furthermore, twenty seven historic districts were created in the last five years alone and I'm sure they'll be more to come...

Last edited by ajs0503; July 23rd, 2013 at 08:40 AM.
ajs0503 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2013, 06:57 PM   #359
joey_122
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 69
Likes (Received): 24

Would it be possible in new York to build older neighborhoods in the form of townhomes like in London.

http://static4.*************.com/102...ll-London..jpg
joey_122 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2013, 07:50 PM   #360
7rani
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Comtť Tolosan
Posts: 6,318
Likes (Received): 2986

I think Paris is the best example of meelting heritage and modern building. So authentic as Rome, and having one of the most advanced business district in Europe.

Last edited by 7rani; July 23rd, 2013 at 07:57 PM.
7rani 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 08:46 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