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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Skyscrapers > Proposed Skyscrapers



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 October 15th, 2014, 05:17 AM   #21
WI_1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 76

This is a long block, but still, it will be incredible to have three supertalls on the same block (assuming this is yet another 57th Street supertall).

And since the block is so long, all three will be separated enough to really preserve spectacular views on all sides.
WI_1982 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 15th, 2014, 05:55 AM   #22
WI_1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostface79 View Post
I wouldn't be too alarmed by this, according to the church's website, it seems like the church will be incorporated in the design.
Nothing in that link indicates the existing building would be incorporated into a new tower.

The church, as an entity, is obviously staying, but probably not the building. I imagine the church would have space at the base of a new tower.
WI_1982 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2014, 12:01 PM   #23
LondoniumLex
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Greenwich
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 2064

Here's a nice annotation posted by NY Guy which shows this site. (And others)



Barnett owns 134 W 58th St. The building to the right is a free market rental. If Barnett can get it, we could have another 400m + tower.

__________________

TowerVerre:) liked this post
LondoniumLex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2014, 07:07 PM   #24
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,167
Likes (Received): 57854

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
Five just-above-average buildings demolished in a city full of old landmarked buildings and neighbourhoods. What a global catastrophe.
I understand your cause, classicists, but jeez, get out of your bubble already.
You keep stating things like this, while one ensemble after another vanishes before our eyes. You will keep saying it when there's only ESB, Chrysler and the Woolworth Building left (yeah, I'm exaggerating). I despise this attitude.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


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

Manitopiaaa liked this post
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2014, 07:34 PM   #25
iamtheSTIG
Registered User
 
iamtheSTIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham - The city of Robin Hood
Posts: 4,228
Likes (Received): 4484

What ThatOneGuy is saying is that many users on here complain that they're knocking down an average building, and because it's old it's a complete shame and say that New York will lose all its heritage...

But think of the amount of buildings being land marked, being saved and AREN'T being demolished, and you'll find that the buildings knocked down are nearly insignificant...

It is known that the majority of people notice the bad things more than the good, and then exaggerate the bad points
__________________
Aspiring property developer with major ambitions

Check out my Instagram

Nottingham Interactive Development Map
iamtheSTIG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2014, 07:38 PM   #26
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,482

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
You keep stating things like this, while one ensemble after another vanishes before our eyes. You will keep saying it when there's only ESB, Chrysler and the Woolworth Building left (yeah, I'm exaggerating). I despise this attitude.
Of course you're exaggerating. Most of NY's old buildings will never be touched.

You should be happy they haven't demolished more, considering the city is on an island.

Last edited by ThatOneGuy; October 15th, 2014 at 07:47 PM.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2014, 08:28 PM   #27
LondoniumLex
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Greenwich
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 2064

The overwhelming majority of Manhattan is dates from before the early 1920s. Midtown between 42nd and 57th is an exception and that area will continue to get new towers.
LondoniumLex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2014, 08:14 PM   #28
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,167
Likes (Received): 57854

This may not be all so worrying for NYC itself, but it's rather worrying for heritage protection as a whole, considering how much the city serves as a role model for many that follow.

The way the city allows such things to happen repeatedly is just saying: Look, if someone got the money, we'll just let him build. Don't worry, heritage is disposable.

But it will never come back.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


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

bodegavendetta liked this post

Last edited by erbse; October 17th, 2014 at 10:53 AM.
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 02:11 AM   #29
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10268

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamtheSTIG View Post
What ThatOneGuy is saying is that many users on here complain that they're knocking down an average building, and because it's old it's a complete shame and say that New York will lose all its heritage...

But think of the amount of buildings being land marked, being saved and AREN'T being demolished, and you'll find that the buildings knocked down are nearly insignificant...

It is known that the majority of people notice the bad things more than the good, and then exaggerate the bad points
The Landmarks Preservation Commission approves the demolition of architecturally significant buildings much more so than they landmark new buildings.

The last building landmarked by the LPC was a fairly standard 2-story home on September 30 (and that one designation came with its own press release). If you look at the docket for the next month, the LPC is not hearing one nomination for landmark status. Even worse, the process for historic districts is cumbersome and arcane.

PENDING HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
Bedford: proposed* 2012, still in limbo
Central Ridgewood: proposed 2010, still in limbo
Crown Heights: proposed 2011, still in limbo
Douglaston: proposed 2008, still in limbo
Riverside-West End II: proposed 2010, still in limbo
proposed=officially calendared by the LPC, starting the process towards possible designation as a historic district

So the idea that the LPC is out there landmarking all of New York is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. There's a Historic District going into its 7th year of paperwork. The LPC devotes 90% of its time debating whether to permit minor facade changes to buildings in existing districts rather than dealing with all of the legal and bureaucratic hurdles towards landmarking further structures. So the idea that New York is turning into a museum city is just downright false. And that's not even getting into the argument of whether, "we'll still have some left" is legitimate enough of an argument to excuse the demolition of architecturally significant buildings.
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

erbse liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 05:20 AM   #30
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

Quote:
Of course you're exaggerating. Most of NY's old buildings will never be touched.

You should be happy they haven't demolished more, considering the city is on an island.
Yeah, a LOT of NYC is landmarked and untouchable. So I'm not worried about NYC itself but it really is frustrating seeing attractive buildings go and arguably NOT being made up for (e.g. the nice but kind of mediocre One57). It wouldn't be the end of the world to see this building go and I don't buy into the argument that NY is especially prone to destroying its character (I mean this IS midtown) but that said I hope they at least incorporate it well into the new tower somehow. 134 West 58th is also pretty attractive so I hope that doesn't go, either....F'ing Extell....
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by bodegavendetta; October 17th, 2014 at 05:41 AM.
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 05:31 AM   #31
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,097
Likes (Received): 1629

Here are just a couple examples of saving facades while putting up new buildings. This is the 21st century. They could easily save the facade while putting up a massive ugly glass building behind it (or a good looking one).

image hosted on flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/...92bf05e4_z.jpg


http://cdn2.vtourist.com/4/1244369-T...an_Antonio.jpg
__________________

erbse, Eric Offereins liked this post
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 05:54 AM   #32
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

There's no doubt they can incorporate old facades, it's a question of if. It is pricier and time consuming. I hope they go that route, though. Or better yet, choose to demolish buildings of no historical or architectural value instead!

Does anyone know if Extell has ever incorporated a facade into their buildings though?
__________________

citybooster, Zaz965 liked this post
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 05:45 PM   #33
Trex-md
In Reason We Trust
 
Trex-md's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Maryland U.S. Of A
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 162

Duuude. That would be wild if they saved the facade of the church. Could you imagine entering the lobby of a glitzy glass skyscraper (if not possible super tall) through wooden doors underneath of stone gothic arches? That would actually be pretty badass! They could have some guy that looks like lurch work as the doorman and have the lobby lot entirely by candelabras. Go nuts Extell. I dare you.
__________________
MOLON LABE
Trex-md no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 11:23 PM   #34
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,593
Likes (Received): 28159

That would be cool, but a bit fake as well.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2014, 05:00 AM   #35
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodegavendetta View Post
Does anyone know if Extell has ever incorporated a facade into their buildings though?
They're doing it right now with Nordstrom. The facade and most of the building facing Broadway will remain the same and will serve as the entrance to the hotel.
Tho I believe that facade is landmarked, not sure if Extell will voluntarily chose to incorporate that facade by its own choosing. I sure hope they do.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2014, 05:37 AM   #36
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

I see, thanks. And yeah, I hope they do too. Maybe the LPC can make a move to save the facade but it seems like a long shot.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 05:09 AM   #37
The Eagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Halifax
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 3487

Why don`t they just build one or two historical skyscrapers in between.
If it`s to expansive to leaf the old.
The Eagle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2014, 06:30 AM   #38
WI_1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
You keep stating things like this, while one ensemble after another vanishes before our eyes. You will keep saying it when there's only ESB, Chrysler and the Woolworth Building left (yeah, I'm exaggerating). I despise this attitude.
What you're writing is completely false, though. Most of Manhattan is either landmarked, downzoned, or special-district.

Even if every single prewar building were demolished that weren't in one of these three types of districts, there would still be barely any change in the overall character of NYC.

There is simply no way to build new buildings without demolishing old ones. If you want to preserve buildings like this, then fine, that's your right, but realize that would mean no more construction in NYC. This is a skyscraper website so obviously people will generally support new towers.
WI_1982 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2014, 06:34 AM   #39
WI_1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
So the idea that the LPC is out there landmarking all of New York is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. There's a Historic District going into its 7th year of paperwork. The LPC devotes 90% of its time debating whether to permit minor facade changes to buildings in existing districts rather than dealing with all of the legal and bureaucratic hurdles towards landmarking further structures. So the idea that New York is turning into a museum city is just downright false.
This whole post is basically 100% a lie.

Again, most of Manhattan is landmarked, downzoned, or special district. Even if not one additional building is ever added to the landmarks list, most of Manhattan is already untouchable.

The fact that there are relatively few new buildings being landmarked is probably due to the fact that almost everything that could conceivably be landmarked is already landmarked.

It would be like saying "Venice is not adding buildings to the landmark list, therefore Venice is pro-destruction of historic buildings". No, Venice is not adding historic buildings to protective status because everything is already under protective status.
WI_1982 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2014, 11:03 AM   #40
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10268

Quote:
Originally Posted by WI_1982 View Post
This whole post is basically 100% a lie.

Again, most of Manhattan is landmarked, downzoned, or special district. Even if not one additional building is ever added to the landmarks list, most of Manhattan is already untouchable.

The fact that there are relatively few new buildings being landmarked is probably due to the fact that almost everything that could conceivably be landmarked is already landmarked.

It would be like saying "Venice is not adding buildings to the landmark list, therefore Venice is pro-destruction of historic buildings". No, Venice is not adding historic buildings to protective status because everything is already under protective status.
You didn't write a single thing that proved me wrong (how interesting). Most of Manhattan was landmarked in either the late 1960s/early 1970s or in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Since then the addition of historic districts has been time consuming, with a historic district taking years to materialize and countless hearings, giving ample time for developers to demolish any buildings set to be landmarked.

Quote:
Again, most of Manhattan is landmarked, downzoned, or special district
Stop with the hyperbole. 'Most' is clearly not true and starting out your comment with an easy-to-disprove statistic is a bad harbinger of the validity of the rest of your comment. Crain's New York Business and the Real Estate Board of New York (with vested interests in inflating the numbers) even only claim that 27.7% of Manhattan is landmarked: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...nt-landmarking. The pro-business New York Post also cites the 27.7% figure: http://nypost.com/2013/07/11/freezing-nyc-growth/. So less than 50% is landmarked or in historic districts. 'Downzoning' is tangential to this debate since whether a historic building is replaced by a 50m tower or a 400m tower means nothing to the state of preservation in New York. Unless we're living in 1984, 27.7% is not 50% (or even close to it).

Quote:
The fact that there are relatively few new buildings being landmarked is probably due to the fact that almost everything that could conceivably be landmarked is already landmarked.
The wholesale landmarking of historic districts is decreasing. I agree on that point. And I agree in principle that the new historic districts landmarked today are of less architectural merit than those landmarked in the 1960s and 70s (between Midtown and Lower Manhattan). But the LPC has major gaps in coverage in certain areas like Midtown, precisely because of political and economic realities. So the LPC has focused on smaller, residential districts that can be landmarked in large blocks than a Midtown strategy that by the 1970s involved starting the landmark process for each individual building. If you were a historic preservationist with limited time and resources, what sounds more appealing: preserving most of Tribeca or, for the same time, maybe saving 4 or 5 buildings in Midtown? The LPC chose the former and one of the unfortunate aftereffects is the major gap in more anonymous buildings with architectural merit in Midtown lacking protection (but still befitting of landmark status compared with what's being landmarked now). Now that the rate of historic districts is diminishing, the LPC should make it a task to focus on individual buildings in Midtown at risk of demolishment. On the contrary, they seem to be content saving individual residentials in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island (buildings that are not at risk of short- to medium-term demolition anyway).

Quote:
It would be like saying "Venice is not adding buildings to the landmark list, therefore Venice is pro-destruction of historic buildings". No, Venice is not adding historic buildings to protective status because everything is already under protective status.
So you are claiming that every building in New York is under protective status? If not, then comparing it to Venice is a stretch of an analogy. So long as New York has areas of buildings not landmarked, it needs a Commission tasked with protecting old buildings and continuing to evaluate the merit of preserving a structure. Buildings still age, after all, and a corporate skyscraper with no purpose in being preserved in 2000 is a historic structure in 2075. I was actually in Venice last weekend so it's interesting you would mention that. But it is by no means comparable to New York.

I'd also like to point that your argument appears to be that everything in New York with architectural merit has already been landmarked. Though I admire your confidence in our bureaucracy, I think a church from 1931 with roots on the site since 1883 is more than befitting of protection, even if it's hip on SSC to bash anyone as a 'nimby' who even suggests historic preservation.
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

bodegavendetta, Henkka liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:27 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