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 August 2nd, 2013, 01:14 PM   #381
esb_ny
Registered User
 
esb_ny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Belfast/New York
Posts: 163
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
... Another one bites the dust.

This building is planned for demolition:
https://maps.google.no/maps?q=new+yo...1.83,,0,-47.74

(The building in the middle behind the church.)

https://www.google.no/search?client=...ml%3B359%3B479

To be replaced with this:



Tread here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...#post105575663
Are they INSANE?! That building is remarkable! How could they? It makes me so sad to see something like that go.
__________________
-Building the Empire State Building-
It is said that Raskob pulled a thick pencil out of a drawer and held it up to William Lamb and asked, "Bill, how high can you make it so that it won't fall down?"

Brucey7 liked this post
esb_ny no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 5th, 2013, 07:00 AM   #382
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by hordak1975 View Post
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.
Frank Gehry's IAC Building is beautiful, but the rest of the new buildings look like excrement from people who just came out of college.

Seriously, the "you've probably never been to NYC" argument is getting old. Of course I've been, but I bet eighty percent of this forum is active in sections of places said users have never been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaricManchurian View Post
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.
LOL. If you know anything about Boston you'd know it's not a small city. I still fail to see how architecture isn't as much of a focal point in New York City as Boston, if not more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
Paris is amazing city!! My favorite place on earth!

I would love for NY to have it's museum city. Specifically relegated to residential neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, Greenwich Village, West Village, South Village, SoHo, NoHo and parts of the Lower East Side. These sections should be maintained and have new development staying true to their heritage aesthetically.

Best example is what Ralph Lauren did. He razed an old limestone mansion and replaced it with a modern limestone one in the Upper East Side. It is a beautiful building. I hope all developments in the upper east side can be like this and made into apartment buildings outfitted with modern technology. That is the nimby in me i guess.

Other than that, ALL business districts such as...

Midtown, Midtown South, Hudson Yards and Lower Manhattan should have the license to be free to any kind of development. Obviously the truly Iconic buildings such as the empire state building, Chrysler etc should be protected..

These sections of Manhattan should be what pushes NYC to the forefront of what a modern global city should be moving beyond the 21st century. Specifically, the more vertical the better!
So most grand skyscrapers in commercial districts have little historic value compared to graffiti-scarred low-rise hipster shacks in Greenwich Village? Um, you've got to be kidding me...

Also, Ralph Lauren didn't actually demolish anything historical, but was required go to the LANDMARKS Commission for permission to tear this down:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/im...articlebox.gif

So I suppose it was a win-win situation, but shows major flaws with the city concerning historic preservation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by koolkid View Post
The Upper East Side has got to be one of the most boring and sterile neighborhood in the whole city. I'd rather live in Harlem or the Bronx than in the UES.
Why not Manshiyat Naser? I hear it's a very vibrant place! It's basically the next step "up" in civilization after a commune in SoHo.

Quote:
There is nice architecture that make for charming streets, especially more towards central park but closer to the east river it goes down hill. First and Second avenues are littered with huge tasteless buildings with terrible huge bases that make the avenues feel very unwelcoming and brutal. Many times, because the retail space is so huge in those buildings, the only type of businesses that take up shop are banks or duane reades. This repeats itself for the entire stretch of those avenues within UES. I've also noticed the UES to have much older residents. Considering that I'm quite young (very early 20's) I don't feel like I fit in. I much prefer the neighborhoods in lower manhattan and brooklyn that offer more for my age group. To each their own.
Again, these are the consequences of the 1916 setback laws and Robert Moses' urban renewal efforts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronpaul View Post
That is disgusting! It seems New York has not learnt from past mistakes! Too many glass and steel skyscrapers make for a totally banal and boring built environment. If they must redevelop that site for financial reasons at least they could engage a talented architect such as R.A.M. Stern who would design something to complement the church and immediate surroundings. I thought the days of the NYC losing it's unique heritage high rise buildings was over but clearly the City of Mamon is alive and well! (Unfortunately NYC is not alone in this, the city of London still continues to demolish fine old structures as well)
But Pelli is a talented architect! 15 Penn Plaza sometimes made me consider the demolition of the Pennslyvania Hotel as an acceptable sacrifice. The Trinity Church Tower fails in comparison, but will certainly complement whatever box is replacing the former Western Electric Building.


More food for thought...

Madison Plaza Building (original Union Carbide HQ), 1913:

http://collections-static-1.mcny.org...5/MNY15868.jpg

Replaced by 300 Madison, 2003:

http://www.turnasure.com/images/proj...300madison.jpg



It looks more like something from 1963. Also, the building at street level is reprehensible.

American Exchange National Bank and National Bank of Commerce Building, 1906, 1897:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/IM-1...-GON089-03.jpg

Replaced by 140 Broadway (former Marine Midland headquarters), 1968:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/055-140_bway_02.jpg



Another box right next to One Chase and Liberty Plaza just HAD to be built.

Commercial Cable Building, 1897:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/IM-1...-GON073-01.jpg

Replaced by this fecal matter, 1956:

http://www.realestatesalesnyc.com/wp...-Street-NY.jpg



Meanwhile, this is historically protected:


Well folks, history does truly repeat itself... Enjoy your shitty new mayor NYC, whether it be the toad woman or a pervert. Such a shame to see the former cradle of capitalism decay both physically and socially.
__________________

erbse, Simfan34, Brucey7 liked this post

Last edited by RegentHouse; August 11th, 2013 at 05:28 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2013, 06:52 PM   #383
Subsequence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 198
Likes (Received): 50

...........
__________________

Vertical_Gotham liked this post

Last edited by Subsequence; March 8th, 2017 at 04:29 PM.
Subsequence no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2013, 07:20 PM   #384
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

@Regenthouse

Did you just throw a Wobbly? There has been an uptick of people here lately doing so in regard to NYC. What ever your reasons are and they may be plausible based on your experiences I feel for you. NYC is not meant for everyone and its DNA is not intended to be for everyone.


“So most grand skyscrapers in commercial districts have little historic value compared to graffiti-scarred low-rise hipster shacks in Greenwich Village? Um, you've got to be kidding me...”

Actually I was slightly kidding but I was speaking in general terms. Of course some grand skyscrapers in the commercial districts should be regarded with historic value but the fact is there are tons of buildings that are not skyscrapers, especially in the commercial districts bearing no historical value. They can be done away with. NYC’s commercial districts are not a museum but a place of commerce.
The aging commercial districts need to be upgraded for today’s needs and for the future.


“Also, Ralph Lauren didn't actually demolish anything historical, but was required go to the LANDMARKS Commission for permission to tear this down:”

You are correct and I stand corrected. The point I was making is what Ralph Lauren did by replacing the previous building with an architecturally beauty that fits the heritage of the area can be done and successfully. There are several projects that are going this direction and hopefully more of this can be done.


”Well folks, history does truly repeat itself... Enjoy your shitty new mayor NYC, whether it be the toad woman or a pervert. Such a shame to see the former cradle of capitalism decay both physically and socially. “

History?? NYC history has always been building new and not preserving the past. Just look at all the wonderful architecture from the Gilded Age Era razed in the past.. That was a shame but they where replaced with uninspiring architecture afterwards. Many of those buildings that stand today honestly IMO, does not deserved to be preserved. IF there was a time to do so then protecting those buildings from that era should have been done. So what we have to do is replace many of these outdated buildings and build something that truly deserves to keep its place in history that fill in the needs of modern companies of today. This time around hopefully we can do it right.

That pervert you speak of (Weiner) will not win so don’t worry about that. I’m just curious why you call Quinn a Toad?? I get you don’t like her but that does not mean NYC is decaying physically and socially?? Respectfully I don’t get it. In fact NYC is thriving unless you are the type who protests “Occupy Wall Street” in Zucotti park downtown if you lived here?? Your rhetoric fits perfectly their views.

Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2013, 10:03 PM   #385
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Um, no... If you've been listening, I side with Wall Street all the time. Contrarily, Weiner and the toad women are campaigning against said principle economic force which drives the city. Also, I've consistently said replacing historic buildings is usually justified if it's something commensurate, which has not been the case with any of the examples in this thread. Frankly, it hasn't been the case since the Great Depression, and if the city wants to recapture its pre-war glory days of the 1920s, businesses, the people, and government, must all have the same mentality to do so.

Quinn, or should I say Rachel Madcow's separated brother at birth, has absolutely no ability to govern the most important city in the world. NYC needs another Gulliani, or at least a Boris Johnson or Shintaro Ishihara. Quinn doesn't even have the credentials to run a town with ten people in Montana.

Last edited by RegentHouse; August 5th, 2013 at 10:13 PM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 05:35 PM   #386
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Frank Gehry's IAC Building is beautiful, but the rest of the new buildings look like excrement from people who just came out of college.
Again, you're just expressing your opinion.. several people appreciate the new buildings of the MeatPacking District: but it seems to be that you don't have the ability to understand that other people may have different tastes

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Also, Ralph Lauren didn't actually demolish anything historical, but was required go to the LANDMARKS Commission for permission to tear this down:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/im...articlebox.gif

So I suppose it was a win-win situation, but shows major flaws with the city concerning historic preservation.
Er, probably because the Landmark Commision was concerned that the replacement was a quality building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Why? No offence, but Barcelona is the most trashy city in Europe.
Are you trolling? I'm not very fond of Barcellona, but it can't be called "the most trashy city in Europe".

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Meanwhile, this is historically protected:
Thanks God such stuff is protected: a city is not only its grand, monumental buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Well folks, history does truly repeat itself... Enjoy your shitty new mayor NYC, whether it be the toad woman or a pervert. Such a shame to see the former cradle of capitalism decay both physically and socially.
Wow, such statements add so much to the discussion

Last edited by hordak1975; August 6th, 2013 at 05:48 PM.
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 05:45 PM   #387
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
More food for thought...

Madison Plaza Building (original Union Carbide HQ), 1913:

http://collections-static-1.mcny.org...5/MNY15868.jpg

Replaced by 300 Madison, 2003:

http://www.turnasure.com/images/proj...300madison.jpg



It looks more like something from 1963. Also, the building at street level is reprehensible.

American Exchange National Bank and National Bank of Commerce Building, 1906, 1897:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/IM-1...-GON089-03.jpg

Replaced by 140 Broadway (former Marine Midland headquarters), 1968:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/055-140_bway_02.jpg



Another box right next to One Chase and Liberty Plaza just HAD to be built.

Commercial Cable Building, 1897:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/IM-1...-GON073-01.jpg

Replaced by this fecal matter, 1956:

http://www.realestatesalesnyc.com/wp...-Street-NY.jpg

Sorry, but..,. what's wrong with you?
Let me tell you that sometimes you should see the bright side of the life: why don't you post some pics of the countless, well-preserved pre-war buildings in NYC?

Also, how many amazing buildings have been destroyed between the two World Wars and after the II World War?
And I am not only talking about USA and Canada: I'm talking about Asia, UK, Australia and Europe.
I'm italian and I can assure you that my country has experienced atrociuos loss when it comes to artistic heritage: not only during the wars... certainly I am not wasting my time writing rants - knowing that they won't make such buildings coming back.

Last edited by hordak1975; August 6th, 2013 at 05:55 PM.
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 05:54 PM   #388
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,230
Likes (Received): 9775

Quote:
Originally Posted by hordak1975 View Post
Sorry, but..,. what's wrong with you?
Again, how many amazing buildings have been destroyed between the two World Wars and after the II World War?
And I am not only talking about USA and Canada: I'm talking about Asia, UK, Australia and Europe.
I'm italian and I can assure you that my country has experienced atrociuos loss when it comes to artistic heritage: not only during the wars... certainly I am not wasting my time writing rants - knowing that they won't make such buildings coming back.
I agree that is certainly not only the US that have lost historic buildings (you should see what we have done to our cities here in Norway ), but what is rather unique is that New York continues to pull down large, grand and monumental buildings form the '19th century and early 20th century. This is not something you will find many places elsewhere.
__________________

erbse liked this post
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 06:03 PM   #389
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Quinn, or should I say Rachel Madcow's separated brother at birth, has absolutely no ability to govern the most important city in the world.
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 09:37 PM   #390
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
@Regenthouse



History?? NYC history has always been building new and not preserving the past. Just look at all the wonderful architecture from the Gilded Age Era razed in the past.. That was a shame but they where replaced with uninspiring architecture afterwards. Many of those buildings that stand today honestly IMO, does not deserved to be preserved. IF there was a time to do so then protecting those buildings from that era should have been done. So what we have to do is replace many of these outdated buildings and build something that truly deserves to keep its place in history that fill in the needs of modern companies of today. This time around hopefully we can do it right.

That pervert you speak of (Weiner) will not win so don’t worry about that. I’m just curious why you call Quinn a Toad?? I get you don’t like her but that does not mean NYC is decaying physically and socially?? Respectfully I don’t get it. In fact NYC is thriving unless you are the type who protests “Occupy Wall Street” in Zucotti park downtown if you lived here?? Your rhetoric fits perfectly their views.

Structures in NYC used to be replaced by greater and grander structures, symbols of progress.

That age is over, and now grand structures are replaced with aesthetically backward modernist nonsense that causes an overall decline in NYC's architectural glory.

This is why there is such a fight for historic preservation. We are like a one-eyed man fighting for his remaining eye.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I donít know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."-Kurt Vonnegut

CNB30, Raf124, Brucey7 liked this post
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2013, 09:44 PM   #391
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Just saying, that while I am a hardcore preservationist, cant we talk about a city where the vast majority of historic structures are in serious danger, like Chicago, where huge numbers beautiful old buildings are demolished, just because the owner was too lazy to fix them up, or wanted a bigger home.
__________________
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 August 7th, 2013, 09:10 AM   #392
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
I agree that is certainly not only the US that have lost historic buildings (you should see what we have done to our cities here in Norway ), but what is rather unique is that New York continues to pull down large, grand and monumental buildings form the '19th century and early 20th century. This is not something you will find many places elsewhere.
I have already written that NYC's authorities should do more when it comes to historical preservation.
__________________

CNB30 liked this post
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2013, 03:31 PM   #393
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by socrates#1fan View Post
Structures in NYC used to be replaced by greater and grander structures, symbols of progress...
In your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by socrates#1fan View Post
That age is over, and now grand structures are replaced with aesthetically backward modernist nonsense that causes an overall decline in NYC's architectural glory.
In your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by socrates#1fan View Post
This is why there is such a fight for historic preservation. We are like a one-eyed man fighting for his remaining eye.
Landmarks actually does a lot of landmarking. It's really easy for people to come into this thread, see posts about prewars that might get demolished, and think Landmarks doesn't do anything, but that's very far from reality.

The Bancroft Building's fate isn't sealed yet for starters, as the Community Board is set to vote on whether or not to propose it as a landmark. This thread is very skewed towards the idea that NY doesn't do much, but South Village expansion will be done by years end, Bed Stuy got 825 buildings added to their landmarked inventory, and Park Slope became the largest landmarked neighborhood in the city with 2,500+ buildings. That's all stuff this year, just off the top of my head. But people would rather focus one building lost here, and one lost there for whatever reason.
__________________

hordak1975, Vertical_Gotham liked this post
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2013, 10:17 PM   #394
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Landmarks actually does a lot of landmarking. It's really easy for people to come into this thread, see posts about prewars that might get demolished, and think Landmarks doesn't do anything, but that's very far from reality.

The Bancroft Building's fate isn't sealed yet for starters, as the Community Board is set to vote on whether or not to propose it as a landmark. This thread is very skewed towards the idea that NY doesn't do much, but South Village expansion will be done by years end, Bed Stuy got 825 buildings added to their landmarked inventory, and Park Slope became the largest landmarked neighborhood in the city with 2,500+ buildings. That's all stuff this year, just off the top of my head. But people would rather focus one building lost here, and one lost there for whatever reason.
Also, I would love to understand the hatred for International Style buildings: there are several nice works from that period...
hordak1975 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2013, 10:19 PM   #395
socrates#1fan
Registered User
 
socrates#1fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,605
Likes (Received): 1318

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
In your opinion.
Not really. The colonial Dutch house was replaced by the Georgian, which in turn was replaced by the victorian, which was replaced by a tower of stone and ornamentation...then suddenly this pattern of building on the successes of Western architectural tradition is violently destroyed with the birth of modernist architecture.
Quote:

In your opinion
Most people (save a few architectural circles) find the replacement of traditional structures with glass boxes and modernist nightmares to be criminal. That's why they have to teach people to "appreciate" such structures. You shouldn't have to be taught to find a building beautiful anymore than you should be taught that your dinner is delicious when really it is vile.
Quote:


Landmarks actually does a lot of landmarking. It's really easy for people to come into this thread, see posts about prewars that might get demolished, and think Landmarks doesn't do anything, but that's very far from reality.

.
Like I said earlier, the absolute explosion in historic preservation is, IMO, more a product of our desire to preserve traditional architecture than it is preserving "history".

So you'll understand one's hostility to even giving an inch. Little by little such moves result in a hideous city.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I donít know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."-Kurt Vonnegut

CNB30, erbse liked this post
socrates#1fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2013, 12:56 AM   #396
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

The Landmark preservation is actually pretty powerful here in NYC and they have been very active with their designating. Nearly 30% of Manhattan is land marked. This is not including NYC’s other boroughs. According to a report, some Manhattan neighborhoods such as the Upper West Side and SoHo are at a 70% clip land marked. A whopping 93% are land marked in all of Manhattan Historic districts*.

The readers here do not know this and when they see or read about a building facing the prospects of being razed their reaction is quite frankly overreacted and will make ignorant generalized comments about New Yorkers for allowing this to happen. It’s like people only see the bad but not the good and there is a whole lot of good. People will want to make their negative comments regardless of the facts because they may have some sort of agenda slandering the people of the city for whatever their reasons are. That is my opinion and how I take it.

NYC in the past had to make a very important decision. Which road is it going to take? Take the road and preserve NYC in a particular time just like Paris or take the other road which is what NYC is today. I guess they made the correct decision because NYC is considered the center of the world, commerce, fashion, media etc.. Tourism is thriving and people from all over the globe visit and chooses to live in NYC.

The DNA of the city has and continues to be a city pushing the envelopes by experimenting how a great urban city should be while moving towards to the next century.

The landmark preservation group knows this and that is why they know they can’t save every freaking building from a certain architectural period and will just have to carefully select their battles in a case by case basis. It is a delicate dance between the developer and the preservationist. Not all battles can be won and that does not make New Yorkers idiots/ dumb. There are zoning rules and every party just has to play the game and 70% of Manhattan not land marked is free game.

NYC today is facing some real urban issues. What people have to understand specifically when it comes to Manhattan is that it is a small island and is densely populated and it’s facing increased population and will be facing a population boom within a decade**. This is a big issue and we will be reaching crises levels.

How many old out dated stock of buildings should be preserved when they can no longer serve its function for the needs of today and moving forward? Companies and people will always want to be in newer facilities/infrastructure so what will happen to all those land mark buildings with no tenants? Those empty buildings will just be taking up valuable space serving no real need of today’s world.

Population growth has always and continues to be the driving force how NYC evolves. The question of how to accommodate its growing population and how not to lose its place at the top globally is what NYC continues to strive to solve. That is NYC.

The good news is that today I think more and more developers/ architects are more mindful and respectful with what they are building today in relation to where the project will be located that will deserve to take its place in NYC history. Hopefully we have learned from the past by creating great architecture and at the same time fulfilling the future needs of the city. By the way, a Modern glass box can be great as well if done correctly. Just because it does not fit ones classical taste does not make it criminal. Lol.

How many building are landmarked?
* http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/07/...ew-high-rebny/

Population Growth in NYC
**http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...265145672.html
__________________

dashyfreak liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2013, 02:06 AM   #397
bolg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 916
Likes (Received): 758

I don't think anyone actually thinks New Yorkers are idiots, it's just frustrating to see beautiful prewar architecture torn down. Any city would be lucky to have some of the buildings posted here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
How many old out dated stock of buildings should be preserved when they can no longer serve its function for the needs of today and moving forward? Companies and people will always want to be in newer facilities/infrastructure so what will happen to all those land mark buildings with no tenants? Those empty buildings will just be taking up valuable space serving no real need of todayís world.
Is it really that they can't fill a function for enough tennants or that a new building could fill a function for more tennants? Do any of Manhattan's buildings have a chance of becoming unoccupied?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
Population growth has always and continues to be the driving force how NYC evolves. The question of how to accommodate its growing population and how not to lose its place at the top globally is what NYC continues to strive to solve. That is NYC.
Does New York's growth have to be centered on Manhattan? The city seems to be managing well with two separate business districts on Manhattan, would a third outside of Manhattan be such a disaster?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
The good news is that today I think more and more developers/ architects are more mindful and respectful with what they are building today in relation to where the project will be located that will deserve to take its place in NYC history.
Agreed. Attitudes globally amongst city planners, real estate developers and architects have improved drastically since the 50s-70s, let's never go back to that.
bolg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2013, 03:01 AM   #398
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by hordak1975 View Post
Again, you're just expressing your opinion.. several people appreciate the new buildings of the MeatPacking District: but it seems to be that you don't have the ability to understand that other people may have different tastes
Sorry, but anybody who finds a box bridged over a defunct railroad to be more appealing than a classical apartment house is crazy (i. e. die-hard modernists which socrates#1fan speaks of), and respecting their opinions is ridiculous.

Quote:
Er, probably because the Landmark Commision was concerned that the replacement was a quality building.
If so, then how to hell did 432 Park Avenue get approved? Even if it wasn't the Drake Hotel, which was undeniably a landmark, and instead some crummy low-rises that dodged the wrecking ball during the early twentieth century skyscraper boom and mid-century gaffes, the Landmark Commission should still have been able to adjudicate whether a giant toothpick completely out of proportion is at all a "quality building."



Quote:
Thanks God such stuff is protected: a city is not only its grand, monumental buildings.
Well then, THAT'S YOUR OPINION. I actually agree to an extent, but destroying grand monumental buildings over low-density and much more common structures, which aren't even preserved well, destroys the city. Imagine if London demolished swaths of grand Victorian buildings, but kept small medieval buildings sandwiched between new and uninspiring ones. Or, if the World Trade Center was built closer to Wall Street, destroying almost all of the classical skyscraper district while leaving gritty Radio Row intact and bizarrely juxtaposed to the Twin Towers.

Quote:
Sorry, but..,. what's wrong with you?
Let me tell you that sometimes you should see the bright side of the life: why don't you post some pics of the countless, well-preserved pre-war buildings in NYC?
I suppose the present situation is brighter than what I mentioned above, but that doesn't warrant sitting back and relaxing, because next thing you find, everything left will be gone. After all, many "preserved" pre-war buildings have been desecrated over the years, whether it be by their use, renovations, additions, certain events, its relationship to its neighbors, and/or the neighborhood as a whole.

Quote:
Also, how many amazing buildings have been destroyed between the two World Wars and after the II World War?
And I am not only talking about USA and Canada: I'm talking about Asia, UK, Australia and Europe.
I'm italian and I can assure you that my country has experienced atrociuos loss when it comes to artistic heritage: not only during the wars... certainly I am not wasting my time writing rants - knowing that they won't make such buildings coming back.
NYC has no excuse for all of these buildings. They weren't destroyed by disaster, whether it be natural or man-made, but simply in order to build glass boxes of little ornamentation.

Quote:
Also, I would love to understand the hatred for International Style buildings: there are several nice works from that period...
I admire International Style, unless you're talking to socrates#1fan. Classical architecture prior to Art Nouveau is still far superior. While there are nice buildings from said period, the consistent past replacements with Art Deco wedding cakes and International Style boxes with giant plazas is redundant in an uninspiring way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNB30 View Post
Just saying, that while I am a hardcore preservationist, cant we talk about a city where the vast majority of historic structures are in serious danger, like Chicago, where huge numbers beautiful old buildings are demolished, just because the owner was too lazy to fix them up, or wanted a bigger home.
At least the replacements are often more architecturally appealing than some wooden carpenter house, and of higher density and consistency with the neighborhood. If Chicago was demolishing its Michigan Avenue buildings fronting Grant Park for more university dorms, or was "preserving" them by turning the former office and hotel space into such undignified uses, I would agree 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
The Bancroft Building's fate isn't sealed yet for starters, as the Community Board is set to vote on whether or not to propose it as a landmark. This thread is very skewed towards the idea that NY doesn't do much, but South Village expansion will be done by years end, Bed Stuy got 825 buildings added to their landmarked inventory, and Park Slope became the largest landmarked neighborhood in the city with 2,500+ buildings. That's all stuff this year, just off the top of my head. But people would rather focus one building lost here, and one lost there for whatever reason.
Thanks for mentioning the Bancroft Building, because you just inadvertently added more fuel to the fire! Also, how many times must you be told? Almost all of what you have been saying is irrelevant because we're talking about Manhattan, and it's more of a building-by-building basis because these are high-profile structures. Fantastic for Brooklyn, but it's a completely different borough with neighborhoods of a completely different make-up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
NYC in the past had to make a very important decision. Which road is it going to take? Take the road and preserve NYC in a particular time just like Paris or take the other road which is what NYC is today. I guess they made the correct decision because NYC is considered the center of the world, commerce, fashion, media etc.. Tourism is thriving and people from all over the globe visit and chooses to live in NYC.
Paris isn't a good example, because it was rebuilt on the basis of uniformity. NYC was spires and cornices of many different heights, almost like a early twentieth century-equivalent of Victorian London. The only differences were greater heights and instead of churches, the towers were the headquarters for corporations. At the time NYC was already the world capital, so your argument makes no sense at all.




http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SPEC/024.jpg


If only NYC took the right road...

Last edited by RegentHouse; August 11th, 2013 at 05:28 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2013, 04:11 AM   #399
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by socrates#1fan View Post
Not really. The colonial Dutch house was replaced by the Georgian, which in turn was replaced by the victorian, which was replaced by a tower of stone and ornamentation...then suddenly this pattern of building on the successes of Western architectural tradition is violently destroyed with the birth of modernist architecture.
Hysterically wild generalization, that assumes not only this course of events, but assumes that essentially, anything old is automatically superior than what is new, just because it's old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by socrates#1fan View Post
Most people (save a few architectural circles) find the replacement of traditional structures with glass boxes and modernist nightmares to be criminal. That's why they have to teach people to "appreciate" such structures. You shouldn't have to be taught to find a building beautiful anymore than you should be taught that your dinner is delicious when really it is vile.
I'm not sure who's doing the teaching, but just for continuity you've made another huge generalization which is nice to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
If so, then how to hell did 432 Park Avenue get approved? Even if it wasn't the Drake Hotel, which was undeniably a landmark, and instead some crummy low-rises that dodged the wrecking ball during the early twentieth century skyscraper boom and mid-century gaffes, the Landmark Commission should still have been able to adjudicate whether a giant toothpick completely out of proportion is at all a "quality building."

432 was as of right, so there was no approval process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Thanks for mentioning the Bancroft Building, because you just inadvertently added more fuel to the fire! Also, how many times must you be told? Almost all of what you have been saying is irrelevant because we're talking about Manhattan, and it's more of a building-by-building basis because these are high-profile structures. Fantastic for Brooklyn, but it's a completely different borough with neighborhoods of a completely different make-up.
The fate of the Bancroft Building isn't sealed yet, but of course, it's assumed it is to meet the predetermined assumption that NY doesn't care about its old buildings.

I think there is a real fundamental misunderstanding of the role that zoning plays here as well. The city controls very tightly, basically what can get built, and where. So there are, hundreds if not thousands of buildings around NY that are worthy of landmarking, but aren't, so people here automatically assume the city doesn't care about those buildings. But zoning is a sort of secondary mechanism with which the city can preserve neighborhoods, and thus buildings, by not up zoning, or allowing more square feet to be built than what is currently allowed and currently exists. Basically what it boils down to is, why tear down a perfectly functional building, when if you were to build a new building, it could only be the same size as what's already there?

Admittedly, that's a system that has flaws, as every system of landmarking would have in a city that is as focused on commerce as NY. I just think it's very important to understand the role of zoning in this discussion as it somehow has gone unmentioned, and seems to very quietly preserve huge swaths of the city.
__________________

hordak1975 liked this post
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2013, 10:44 AM   #400
hordak1975
Registered User
 
hordak1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
NYC has no excuse for all of these buildings. They weren't destroyed by disaster, whether it be natural or man-made, but simply in order to build glass boxes of little ornamentation.
So buildings of little ornamentation are bad... wow...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
I admire International Style, unless you're talking to socrates#1fan. Classical architecture prior to Art Nouveau is still far superior. While there are nice buildings from said period, the consistent past replacements with Art Deco wedding cakes and International Style boxes with giant plazas is redundant in an uninspiring way.
Again, it's just your opinion... if NYC had built only classical buildings it would have been just a Paris' copy... thanks God it didn't happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Sorry, but anybody who finds a box bridged over a defunct railroad to be more appealing than a classical apartment house is crazy (i. e. die-hard modernists which socrates#1fan speaks of), and respecting their opinions is ridiculous.
I find both them appealing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Imagine if London demolished swaths of grand Victorian buildings, but kept small medieval buildings sandwiched between new and uninspiring ones. Or, if the World Trade Center was built closer to Wall Street, destroying almost all of the classical skyscraper district while leaving gritty Radio Row intact and bizarrely juxtaposed to the Twin Towers.
London has already destroyed several Victorian buildings... and there are few middle-ages buildings left.
So, not only you haven't visited NYC, you also haven't visited London..

Last edited by musiccity; August 10th, 2013 at 07:10 PM. Reason: cleaning up
hordak1975 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 09:02 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