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 November 21st, 2012, 08:06 PM   #161
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Yeah, I couldn't even post the best photos from flickr because linking was disabled. Ladies Mile, Upper West Side, Tribeca, SoHo, East Village, West Village are all quintessential Manhattan neighborhoods that are landmark protected. Not to mention many other neighborhoods that are essentially protected through restrictive zoning - Hells Kitchen, LES and portions of the East Village for example. Brooklyn has great landmark neighborhoods as well.

Just to reiterate, I certainly wouldn't claim that there haven't been some architectural travesties in NYC. Penn Station is among them. The raising of whole neighborhoods in the 50s and 60s for "slum clearance" are among them as well. But the notion that NYC is obliterating its architectural heritage is hyperbole. In fact, I would argue that more is being done today to protect it than any other time in its history.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 21st, 2012, 09:58 PM   #162
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
I agree. The preservation issue of Manhattan ain't to be found in those neighborhoods, but in the high-density areas where some of the last beautiful ensembles of historical highrises and townhouses are disappearing. That's what made the charm of large swathes of the skyscraper ocean of Manhattan.
THANK YOU! It's like 158 Madison Avenue, and how the developer successfully acquired all the low rise buildings on the corner for a tower, which will complement the historic high-rises in the area and even the Empire State Building. Hopefully, it will usher in more re-development of shabby low-rises for a solid neighborhood rich in history but fit for international business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
You clearly don't know NYC very well. The Upper West Side is NOT in need of redevelopment.
I wasn't specifically referring to the Upper West Side. I was referring to places which I will provide an example of below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNB30 View Post
And are still prominent department stores today
I'd hardly call discount retail, a fitness center, college use, or subsidized housing at all prominent. It's desecrating!

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
You say "if so many beautiful Midtown high-rises weren't constantly being destroyed," and then provide one example. If it's a constant problem, then provide other examples. I live here, you're grossly exaggerating the issue.
Haven't we already? The Drake Hotel. Also the Russell Hotel, but at least a box didn't go in its place. Regardless, the developer could have demolished adjacent low-rise buildings instead, and incorporated the old hotel into the new construction.

Quote:
In regard to good historic preservation, scroll up and look at what's been done with the Corbin Building.
Yes, the Corbin Building seems to be good historic preservation. I can't seem to find out what the building is going to be used for...

Quote:
In regards to your last sentence, so you're okay with this being redeveloped? Because what's pictured is exactly like what was landmarked.

Park Slope:

image hosted on flickr

http://brooklynhistory.org/blog/tag/park-slope/

Or this...

East Village:


http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2011...-300-buildings

Or...

Harlem:


http://www.greatrealtyusa.com/realtors/NY/Harlem.htm
No, established residential neighborhoods should be preserved. I'm talking about low-rise clusterf***ks, usually along major streets which contrast with surrounding new development. For example, in Hell's Kitchen:

image hosted on flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2264/...e9ef573388.jpg

In it's place should be more development like:

http://www.inetours.com/New_York/Ima...za8th_3453.jpg

A flowing transition is needed between high and low-density neighborhoods, and I believe preservation in the wrong places has segmented the city to the extent that you see the juxtaposition of shabby low-rises and high-rise towers.

Last edited by RegentHouse; December 14th, 2012 at 09:50 AM. Reason: Added image sources
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2012, 10:05 PM   #163
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

Hells kitchen has some beautiful apartments, are you crazy, the mis of old and new is what makes NYC. The fact that beautiful old apartments are next to tall towers is what I like about that area of town. A transition would be too monotonous.
Lastly, those are neighborhoods too.
__________________
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 November 21st, 2012, 11:33 PM   #164
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNB30 View Post
Hells kitchen has some beautiful apartments, are you crazy, the mis of old and new is what makes NYC. The fact that beautiful old apartments are next to tall towers is what I like about that area of town. A transition would be too monotonous.
Lastly, those are neighborhoods too.
If you like such juxtaposition, I'd recommend you move to India. New York City is the financial capital of the greatest nation on earth, not a cesspool for sentiment that promotes grittiness.

People argue Paris is monotonous, but it's beautiful and it's what makes the city. I never denied that there should be mix of old and new, rather densities should match. Hell's Kitchen in relation to its surrounding high-density neighborhoods, as well as 432 Park Avenue are both antithesis of what I'm stating.

Last edited by RegentHouse; November 21st, 2012 at 11:46 PM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2012, 12:49 AM   #165
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
If you like such juxtaposition, I'd recommend you move to India. New York City is the financial capital of the greatest nation on earth, not a cesspool for sentiment that promotes grittiness.

People argue Paris is monotonous, but it's beautiful and it's what makes the city. I never denied that there should be mix of old and new, rather densities should match. Hell's Kitchen in relation to its surrounding high-density neighborhoods, as well as 432 Park Avenue are both antithesis of what I'm stating.
What are you talking about? Juxtaposition is what NYC is all about. New York is the anti-Paris in that regard. It always has been.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2012, 01:47 AM   #166
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Haven't we already? The Drake Hotel. Also the Russell Hotel, but at least a box didn't go in its place. Regardless, the developer could have demolished adjacent low-rise buildings instead, and incorporated the old hotel into the new construction.
Anyone who says the old Russell Hotel was beautiful needs glasses, pictured below unless I'm mistaken, and you're thinking of another building. Again, if this is the epidemic you suggest it is, you should be able to list a half dozen buildings without even thinking. So far you've named The Drake, that's it. And for every one tower you classify as beautiful there a dozen in Midtown that are landmarked. You're grossly exaggerating the issue.


http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON068.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Yes, the Corbin Building seems to be good historic preservation. I can't seem to find out what the building is going to be used for...
I frankly don't know, and couldn't find out after some googling. The lower levels will be incorporated into the Fulton St Transit Center, so there will be some escalators passing through the building, and retail etc. The top 6 floors or so, I have no idea. I would imagine small, boutique offices given its access to transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
No, established residential neighborhoods should be preserved. I'm talking about low-rise clusterf***ks, usually along major streets which contrast with surrounding new development. For example, in Hell's Kitchen...

A flowing transition is needed between high and low-density neighborhoods, and I believe preservation in the wrong places has segmented the city to the extent that you see the juxtaposition of shabby low-rises and high-rise towers.
I would call Hell's Kitchen a pretty well established residential neighborhood for starters, and sbarn summed up my feelings about juxtaposition. New York if anything is a juxtaposition, in every sense.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2012, 01:51 AM   #167
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
What are you talking about? Juxtaposition is what NYC is all about. New York is the anti-Paris in that regard. It always has been.
Maybe during periods of major transformation (i. e. mansions to apartment houses), but it's unfortunate that the ugliest and most insignificant structures of NYC's past remain while the classical buildings that caused the favorable kind of juxtaposition (think pre-1916 and maybe roaring twenties) are destroyed.

Last edited by RegentHouse; November 22nd, 2012 at 02:18 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2012, 02:12 AM   #168
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Anyone who says the old Russell Hotel was beautiful needs glasses, pictured below unless I'm mistaken, and you're thinking of another building. Again, if this is the epidemic you suggest it is, you should be able to list a half dozen buildings without even thinking. So far you've named The Drake, that's it. And for every one tower you classify as beautiful there a dozen in Midtown that are landmarked. You're grossly exaggerating the issue.
Yes, that was the building and it was beautiful, far better than the crap which surrounds it. You can find many more lost buildings from where you found the picture, all of which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Quote:
I would call Hell's Kitchen a pretty well established residential neighborhood for starters, and sbarn summed up my feelings about juxtaposition. New York if anything is a juxtaposition, in every sense.
I never said it wasn't but it looks like a third-world country along Eighth around Times Square. If that's what you mean by juxtaposition, it's pathetic. It's exactly what I'm referring to about all the bohemians who took most the sophistication out of living in the city to embrace such a disgusting lifestyle, which brought shame to the city since the 1960s.

Last edited by RegentHouse; November 22nd, 2012 at 04:53 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2012, 04:32 PM   #169
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

^

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree because the Russell was hideous.

And the list from that link I provided is a collection of buildings demolished over a more than 100 year period. If those buildings had been demolished all in the past 5, 10, hell even 20 year period, I'd agree with you, but some of those buildings were demolished in the 1930s and earlier. Again, if this is a true epidemic, then naming a half dozen buildings that have been demolished in the past 5-8 years should not be a problem. You're grossly exaggerating the problem.

Third world along 8th Ave and Times Square? Where exactly? I feel like you're just thinking about the one story Duane Reade and the Port Authority on 8th Avenue, and I have no clue how anyone could call Times Square third world, you're gonna have to expand on that one for me.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:06 AM   #170
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

^Not exactly along Eighth Avenue, because recently there has been some meaningful development. I suppose it and Times Square used to look third world until Rudy cleaned the central areas up. Yet when you go from Eighth to Ninth, you appear to be in a completely different world. Ninth Avenue indeed looks third world, and I have no idea why it would ever be considered historic compared to any aforementioned building demolished.

I realize that many important buildings have been demolished along an expansive period of time, but the fact that such a trend has continued to this day still shows a lack of sense in historic preservation. All efforts which you mentioned are primarily for secluded areas, rather than specific grand offices and hotels. While the residential areas you posted pictures of should be preserved, the overwhelming majority of buildings seen by the public (ex. the Ninth and Tenth Avenue corridors and some low-profile buildings on Eighth) aren't worth preserving considering the former.

I must also mention, it's not only the buildings and their architecture, but also the streetscape that has been destroyed. Cobrahead streetlights replaced Corvingtons, plain sidewalks, very little landscaping, and the removal of the streetcar system are just a few issues.

Last edited by RegentHouse; November 23rd, 2012 at 03:25 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:07 AM   #171
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
^Not exactly along Eighth Avenue, because recently there has been some meaningful development. I suppose it and Times Square used to look third world until Rudy cleaned the central areas up. Yet when you go from Eighth to Ninth, you appear to be in a completely different world. Ninth Avenue indeed looks third world, and I have no idea why it would ever be considered historic compared to any aforementioned building demolished.
9th is definitely a work in progress, especially around 42nd because of the Port Authority. But it's slowly getting nicer. Architecture aside, The Orion, and Mima, are high end residential buildings new to the area, and Silverstein is working on a 60 story residential building on 41st and 9th as well.

I'm getting a bit off topic, but from 9th Avenue around the PA on 42nd all the way to Chelsea Market, there are few if any, buildings worth saving directly on 9th Avenue. There are tons of lots beautiful side streets between 8th and 9th Avenues, but on 9th its pretty bleh. But north of 42nd on 9th I think there are some lovely, classic NY brick buildings worth saving, some, not huge stretches but some. I think you're picking what is easily one of the worst sections of Manhattan, 9th Ave from say 42nd to 39th and blanketing it to describe 9th Ave. Again, north on 9th, there are some nice buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
I realize that many important buildings have been demolished along an expansive period of time, but the fact that such a trend has continued to this day still shows a lack of sense in historic preservation. All efforts which you mentioned are primarily for secluded areas, rather than specific grand offices and hotels. While the residential areas you posted pictures of should be preserved, the overwhelming majority of buildings seen by the public (ex. the Ninth and Tenth Avenue corridors and some low-profile buildings on Eighth) aren't worth preserving considering the former.
I again fundamentally disagree with you when you say there is a lack of historic preservation when over 27,000 buildings are landmarked. Any building demolished before 1965 is apples and oranges because that was done before the Landmarks Commission existed. No system of preservation is ever going to be perfect, there will be always be nice buildings lost here and there, but I think people greatly underestimate how well the city protects what it has.

The East Village, Harlem, Park Slope, and UWS are not secluded areas. At all. Within those new landmarked areas, the exact types of buildings you seem to want to be landmarked, are being landmarked. Walk through particularly the UWS and you will see some grand NY buildings that have been landmarked in the past year, or less.

I agree with you that there's little worth saving on 8th, 9th, and 10th Avenues when one considers how many buildings there are on those avenues. Again, I think on upper 9th in Midtown there is, and probably a little on 8th as well, 10th is pretty uninteresting though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
I must also mention, it's not only the buildings and their architecture, but also the streetscape that has been destroyed. Cobrahead streetlights replaced Corvingtons, plain sidewalks, very little landscaping, and the removal of the streetcar system are just a few issues.
On major avenues like 8th or 9th, substantial landscaping is unrealistic because you need so much space for cars and pedestrians, but there's certainly room for improvement. I frankly don't know anything about streetlights, but a streetcar system could be nice if executed properly. I remember seeing somewhere a vision to put a modern streetcar system across 42nd St.

Generally speaking though I think NY does pretty well in terms of street scape. In a place like Midtown is not a fair representation of the entire city, being the largest business district in the world, and just bursting with people, every inch of space is needed for pedestrians and cars, but leave Midtown and it's generally nice.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:50 AM   #172
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
I'm getting a bit off topic, but from 9th Avenue around the PA on 42nd all the way to Chelsea Market, there are few if any, buildings worth saving directly on 9th Avenue. There are tons of lots beautiful side streets between 8th and 9th Avenues, but on 9th its pretty bleh. But north of 42nd on 9th I think there are some lovely, classic NY brick buildings worth saving, some, not huge stretches but some. I think you're picking what is easily one of the worst sections of Manhattan, 9th Ave from say 42nd to 39th and blanketing it to describe 9th Ave. Again, north on 9th, there are some nice buildings.
Alright, fair enough!

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
The East Village, Harlem, Park Slope, and UWS are not secluded areas. At all. Within those new landmarked areas, the exact types of buildings you seem to want to be landmarked, are being landmarked. Walk through particularly the UWS and you will see some grand NY buildings that have been landmarked in the past year, or less.
Any examples would be nice, thank you.

Quote:
Generally speaking though I think NY does pretty well in terms of street scape. In a place like Midtown is not a fair representation of the entire city, being the largest business district in the world, and just bursting with people, every inch of space is needed for pedestrians and cars, but leave Midtown and it's generally nice.
LOL, the thing is Midtown is considered to be the focal point in selling the city, even over Downtown. It could all change when the new WTC complex is finished. I still think grand buildings should be the top priority for preservationists in these areas rather than the less big business-oriented neighborhoods. Again, these show the United States' wealth and might, as new skyscrapers in Shanghai do for emerging China.

Last edited by RegentHouse; November 23rd, 2012 at 05:31 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:42 PM   #173
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
...Any examples would be nice, thank you...
Two minutes Google Earthing West End Avenue within the new landmarked area and I found these two. Look through landmarked buildings, and neighborhoods and I guarantee you'll find dozens of examples of buildings that fit what you're looking for.

801 West End, and the building next door:


http://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/rivers...nd-avenue/1947

839 West End:


http://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/rivers...nd-avenue/7637

This is just a random photo I found to show what West End looks like. But this area is definitely worth preserving.


http://www.biking-in-manhattan.com/u204-99106w.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
LOL, the thing is Midtown is considered to be the focal point in selling the city, even over Downtown. It could all change when the new WTC complex is finished. I still think grand buildings should be the top priority for preservationists in these areas rather than the less big business-oriented neighborhoods. Again, these show the United States' wealth and might, as new skyscrapers in Shanghai do for emerging China.
I doubt people who consider Midtown NY's selling point are concerned about landscaping, or even consider it when they're planning their trip, or here. There's too much going on for someone to stop and think that the side streets have trees, but 6th Avenue doesn't.

The second half of that post speaks to an assumption that you're making, which is that because big buildings aren't currently being landmarked, therefore none have ever been landmarked in Midtown. Lots of 'grand' buildings are landmarked in Midtown. Look on the LPC website, and go through the areas where you're most interested. You'll be surprised.

Looking forward though, I expect more large buildings, real skyscrapers, to be landmarked in East Midtown before the areas rezoning goes through.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2012, 07:10 AM   #174
Willink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 1

Agree with the sentiment of the OP

Appearance in this sense seems to be more of the matter of opinion, but to me Beaux-Arts and other styes in that same sort of architectural period (Second Empire, etc) are far more aesthetically appealing and evocative of grandeur than simplistic supertall glass boxes.

Granted I think they have their place, and a number of current designs are sweeping and beautiful, they are often intrusive into the urban environment of the cityscape. For example, look at how the setbacks and spires and crowns of the earlier buildings in downtown Manhattan presented the illusion of height being much greater, only for that effect to be completely obliterated by the raising of massive boxes like 60 Wall Street.


Stuff like 8 Spruce Street is hideous IMO.
Willink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2012, 03:46 AM   #175
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
I agree. The preservation issue of Manhattan ain't to be found in those neighborhoods, but in the high-density areas where some of the last beautiful ensembles of historical highrises and townhouses are disappearing. That's what made the charm of large swathes of the skyscraper ocean of Manhattan.
Actually, as seen HERE, the Upper West Side and Upper East Side have a higher population density than Midtown, so I wouldn't call them "neighborhoods" in the traditional sense of the word. The remain extremely high density districts, that retain much of the character of the "old New York" that you're eluding to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankeesfan1000
The East Village, Harlem, Park Slope, and UWS are not secluded areas. At all. Within those new landmarked areas, the exact types of buildings you seem to want to be landmarked, are being landmarked. Walk through particularly the UWS and you will see some grand NY buildings that have been landmarked in the past year, or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse
Any examples would be nice, thank you.
There are some spectacular buildings that are landmarked on the Upper West Side that are far more interesting then the Drake ever was. Some examples:

The Ansonia

Source: Wikipedia

image hosted on flickr

Source: wilybrunette

The Anthrop

Source: Wikipedia

image hosted on flickr

Source: ScoutingNY


Source: Modenus

The Belnord (with a similar courtyard arrangement):

Source: Wikipedia

The Dakota (of course):

Source: History Through the Lens

image hosted on flickr

Source: pls47 @flickr

The San Remo:

Source: Manhattan Scout

There are many other notable buildings on the Upper West Side and countless hidden "gems" (for lack of a better word). So once again, I don't think you can say the Upper West Side isn't a central part of NYC. Furthermore, I think its fair to say that this neighborhood has been well preserved in terms of its historic character.
__________________

Jaguar liked this post
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2012, 06:02 AM   #176
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 804

The upper west side has probably the best collection of brownstones outside of Brooklyn





__________________
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 November 27th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #177
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,167
Likes (Received): 57840

You just don't get it. This is not about preservation in secluded areas.

It's about preservation wherever it's needed to maintain the city's character. And Midtown is an area where it's especially needed - and even more so at Park Avenue, where one of the last beautiful ensembles of townhouses and a historical highrise hotel of one of the most important streets of NYC disappeared. That's what the loss is about and what happened in the city many times before. Still, you may say, that's what NYC is about. Fine, but that's also what's uglyfying the city more and more.

But keep going, it's your city, huh.
__________________
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 November 27th, 2012, 08:43 PM   #178
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
You just don't get it. This is not about preservation in secluded areas.
This is laughable. Seriously, even for the internet this is absurd. The UWS as a secluded area? I mean... Think about what you're saying. This is an area within easy walking distance of the largest business district on the entire planet. How can anyone call that secluded? Honestly? To say nothing of the fact that it's denser, and more interesting from an urban perspective than a handful of city cores in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
It's about preservation wherever it's needed to maintain the city's character. And Midtown is an area where it's especially needed - and even more so at Park Avenue, where one of the last beautiful ensembles of townhouses and a historical highrise hotel of one of the most important streets of NYC disappeared. That's what the loss is about and what happened in the city many times before. Still, you may say, that's what NYC is about. Fine, but that's also what's uglyfying the city more and more.

But keep going, it's your city, huh.
The first part, about the townhouses. Have you ever been to New York? Those townhouses, by NY standards, were pretty forgettable. Go to the UWS, UES, Greenwich Village, East Village, Park Slope, Chelsea, Hells Kitchen, or Harlem, that have literally thousands, let me say that again, thousands, of landmarked townhouses infinitely more attractive than those, to say nothing of the thousands of other townhouses in other parts of the city.

Unless you've spent a considerable amount of time in New York, and not just Manhattan, I can tell you without a doubt, you have no idea just how much of this city dates to the first half of 20th century, and how much of Midtown as well, and how much is landmarked. There's just no way looking at photos on a skyscraper website or watching movies could truly transmit that, to say nothing of the number of new buildings, and neighborhoods that are landmarked each year.

I mean, I've never been to Mecklenburg and you don't see me making huge generalizations about that region do you.
yankeesfan1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2012, 11:35 PM   #179
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,167
Likes (Received): 57840

I've been to NYC for roughly 6 weeks. I'll let you know when I start posting pictures.


Again: NYC needs to preserve the very center of its own, the areas that define it.
Upper West is nice of course, but hardly among those areas. The focus should be on Midtown and Downtown.

I'm getting tired of people losing the perception of beauty at this rapid pace.
Many just don't care what happens to "some old building". Be warned: You're fuelling the downfall of human heritage and you're sacrificing the character of the biggest metropolis of your country, New Yorkers. In small, sneaky steps.

Despite all the efforts to cement historical neighborhoods: It's the whole entity, the city vibe that loses another portion of its attraction when another bland internationalist box replaces a grand historical townhouse, hotel or department store.
__________________
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 November 28th, 2012, 01:04 AM   #180
WrightTurn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 379
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
You just don't get it. This is not about preservation in secluded areas.

It's about preservation wherever it's needed to maintain the city's character. And Midtown is an area where it's especially needed - and even more so at Park Avenue, where one of the last beautiful ensembles of townhouses and a historical highrise hotel of one of the most important streets of NYC disappeared. That's what the loss is about and what happened in the city many times before. Still, you may say, that's what NYC is about. Fine, but that's also what's uglyfying the city more and more.

But keep going, it's your city, huh.
The Upper West Side, the West Village, The Ladies Mile and Soho are secluded? You are insane.

A few other points:

Postwar modern steel and glass construction is as much a part of New York's historic and aesthetic fabric as anything else, and the examples in Midtown are among the world's best, miles and miles past any of the tat thrown up in Europe during the same time.

Portions of Murray Hill, Madison Square North and Tudor City are historic districts as are dozens of individual landmarks. Much more could and should be done, but the idea that the area as a whole is simply to be swept aside is ludicrous. The great landmarks - the Empire State, Grand Central, the New York Public Library, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building, the Seagram Building, the Waldorf Astoria, Macy's, the Knickerbocker Hotel, University Club, St. Patrick's, Lord & Taylor, 555 Fifth, the Chanin Building, Lever House, Tiffany's (the old and the current buildings), Carnegie Hall, etc, etc, etc, aren't going anywhere.

And while there are horror stories aplenty, there are as many stories of old buildings beautifully redone in recent years and months - Broadway between Herald Square and Madison Square is becoming once again one of the great boutique hotel rows, all of which are being developed in historic skyscrapers and Beaux Arts marvels.

The Drake Hotel was a fine building but some of the other examples you cited were mediocre at best.

Finally? It IS our city. Thank you!
WrightTurn 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 04:46 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