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 > City/Metro Compilations

City/Metro Compilations Help report active highrise/urban developments occurring in your city to the global SSC community.



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 April 19th, 2016, 12:49 AM   #6381
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,543
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by benpicko View Post
Nobody would care if the replacements were similarly beautiful, but when the best being offered is a glass block of course people will care. If caring about the beauty of a city is 'crying over spilled milk', then I'll happily continue doing so.
....That's not how historic preservation works, in practice - in law, and if you'd like to comprehend why this building is being torn down rather than preserved, we can have that discussion.

Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you lot. The building isn't valuable. There's no point in saving it. It does not contribute any "historic" value to that neighborhood.

Downtown has been a sea of modernist boxes for decades, now.
Art deco is not at risk of being lost - in the city, or country.
There are existing structures that constitute masterful examples of that style, in this neighborhood and elsewhere in the city.

Hence, it is of no worth saving; when considerations of making space for developable land hangs in the balance.

In an ideal world, older structures obviously wouldn't need to be torn down, but we don't live an ideal world, and space isn't unlimited.

Manhattan is an island.

Continuing to go on about it is, indeed, crying over spilled milk. I normally gloss over it, but it happens every so often, despite repeated attempts to explain why everything older than 15 years isn't (and can't be) preserved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellvis View Post
Apologies but I beg to disagree, these are the type of buildings that for me typify New York. It may not be the best example of NYC Art Deco and it may not have any historic merit, it may not be important and I don't care if it's uptown, downtown or mid town, it's a beautiful building and to demolish it 10 odd years short of it's centenary is cruel. I love New York with a passion and it hurts to see the fabric of New York slowly eroded.
Alas, we have the same problem here in London. We have plenty of historic and protected buildings but we are gradually losing the old 'pretty but unimportant' buildings, the buildings that have to particular merit but buildings that form the fabric of London. Redeveloped under the 'progress banner'.
But I guess someone is getting wealthy redeveloping this site and it's difficult to fight the developers on so many fronts. Very sad. A tale of two cities.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
__________________
MCRP '16

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 19th, 2016, 03:44 AM   #6382
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
The building isn't valuable. There's no point in saving it. It does not contribute any "historic" value to that neighborhood.

Downtown has been a sea of modernist boxes for decades, now.

Hence, it is of no worth saving; when considerations of making space for developable land hangs in the balance.
You're being obtuse about this particular case. This building was valuable because Trinity Square was surrounded entirely by older buildings. When you were standing there and looked around, it felt like you were in the 1930s from all sides. Now, it'll only look like that from three sides.

I think your argument works better for the buildings being demolished for One Vanderbilt...they weren't that interesting and that part of Midtown had less of its old urban fabric intact than Trinity Square, which was anything but a sea of modernist boxes. I mean yeah it's not like they demolished the Woolworth Building but it's definitely a bummer.
__________________
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 04:02 AM   #6383
Amrafel
Bratislava YIMBY
 
Amrafel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia/Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 7,752
Likes (Received): 5023

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostface79 View Post
Speaking of under the radar starchitects in the city, I can't wait to see how Tadao Ando's project turns out. Simple and sophisticated, unlike some of those overly loud buildings we see too many of.
Some updates would be nice too.
More Japanese architects for Western cities, please. Simple, minimalist and with philosophy behind it - that's how modern architecture should be
__________________
FRESH UPDATES AND INFORMATION ABOUT BRATISLAVA DEVELOPMENT ON

BRATISLAVA YIMBY.

storms991, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Amrafel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 02:24 PM   #6384
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,543
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodegavendetta View Post
You're being obtuse about this particular case. This building was valuable because Trinity Square was surrounded entirely by older buildings. When you were standing there and looked around, it felt like you were in the 1930s from all sides. Now, it'll only look like that from three sides.

I think your argument works better for the buildings being demolished for One Vanderbilt...they weren't that interesting and that part of Midtown had less of its old urban fabric intact than Trinity Square, which was anything but a sea of modernist boxes. I mean yeah it's not like they demolished the Woolworth Building but it's definitely a bummer.
I'm not being obtuse...I'm simply pointing out that the way things work, don't mirror the mindset of "I like it, it should stay."

Look, it's not like I don't agree. I do. The building is nice, but your example of the Woolworth is odd...this would be like demolishing a cast iron building in SoHo.

There are so few of those buildings left elsewhere in the city, or country, and little to no cohesive grouping of buildings, in that style, it is worth preventing a building being demolished, in that scenario.

If that same building happened to be in downtown, Brooklyn, it wouldn't be as high a priority.

I just get exasperated, because I've worked with people in historic preservation, and I'm simply explaining the mindset many of them have and the perspective of preservation laws/efforts.

There are other considerations to take into account, because everything can't - and won't - be saved.

If there were other buildings near the one, at hand, in very similar styles - there really isn't - then you would have what could be a historic district, with this structure being a key/contributing resource. As such, it would be worth saving.

As it currently stands, in the view of preservation efforts - understanding that the ability, time, effort, to preserve is limited - this is just not vital to the surroundings. It's a nice building, but not a "masterwork" example of Art Deco, doesn't have a cohesive grouping of Deco neighbors, and its neighborhood has long ago shifted its historic character, as older structures were demolished or altered beginning in the 60s and 70s.

That has nothing to do with a subjective value of the building but more about a hierarchical/comparative ordering of structures on which efforts should be focused.

If you want to criticize that, go ahead, I think that's a worthwhile discussion. However, I'm pointing out that the refrain of "we should make sure anything older than __ years is designated, particularly if it looks nice, and I like it," isn't how historic preservation works, in practice.

I mean, it should be patently obvious the tension between preservation, on the one hand, and development, on the other. You can't have a totality of either. There's a balance, and this building's fate is the consequence of a give-and-take.

Forgetting - or, as is often the case, refusing to accept - this reality is "being obtuse," to me.
__________________
MCRP '16

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 09:11 PM   #6385
Opulentus
Registered User
 
Opulentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Norwich
Posts: 321
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
I'm not being obtuse...I'm simply pointing out that the way things work, don't mirror the mindset of "I like it, it should stay."

Look, it's not like I don't agree. I do. The building is nice, but your example of the Woolworth is odd...this would be like demolishing a cast iron building in SoHo.

There are so few of those buildings left elsewhere in the city, or country, and little to no cohesive grouping of buildings, in that style, it is worth preventing a building being demolished, in that scenario.

If that same building happened to be in downtown, Brooklyn, it wouldn't be as high a priority.

I just get exasperated, because I've worked with people in historic preservation, and I'm simply explaining the mindset many of them have and the perspective of preservation laws/efforts.

There are other considerations to take into account, because everything can't - and won't - be saved.

If there were other buildings near the one, at hand, in very similar styles - there really isn't - then you would have what could be a historic district, with this structure being a key/contributing resource. As such, it would be worth saving.

As it currently stands, in the view of preservation efforts - understanding that the ability, time, effort, to preserve is limited - this is just not vital to the surroundings. It's a nice building, but not a "masterwork" example of Art Deco, doesn't have a cohesive grouping of Deco neighbors, and its neighborhood has long ago shifted its historic character, as older structures were demolished or altered beginning in the 60s and 70s.

That has nothing to do with a subjective value of the building but more about a hierarchical/comparative ordering of structures on which efforts should be focused.

If you want to criticize that, go ahead, I think that's a worthwhile discussion. However, I'm pointing out that the refrain of "we should make sure anything older than __ years is designated, particularly if it looks nice, and I like it," isn't how historic preservation works, in practice.

I mean, it should be patently obvious the tension between preservation, on the one hand, and development, on the other. You can't have a totality of either. There's a balance, and this building's fate is the consequence of a give-and-take.

Forgetting - or, as is often the case, refusing to accept - this reality is "being obtuse," to me.
Regardless of it's historical value, one cannot deny that the older building was much more attractive. How can you justify such a beautiful building being demolished to make way for something so bad? It's criminal.
__________________
Committed Anti-Modernist
-
"In this age of ugliness, an act of beauty is an act of defiance"
Opulentus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 11:13 PM   #6386
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,912
Likes (Received): 25292

Also what bodegavendetta says is true. The immediate area of this building is ALL classical buildings with respect to architecture, so demolishing the building does indeed break up the cohesiveness of that.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 11:14 PM   #6387
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,912
Likes (Received): 25292

I love that NYC is getting so many classically-inspired skyscrapers as of late

__________________
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 11:15 PM   #6388
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,912
Likes (Received): 25292

But 220 Central Park South might get lost in the behemoths going up nearby :P


__________________
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 02:37 AM   #6389
Android2001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,334
Likes (Received): 2689

How many people can live in one of those residential supertalls? It's gotta be a huge amount equivalent to several city blocks of your average townhouse. Crazy stuff.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Andre_idol liked this post
Android2001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 04:10 AM   #6390
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53453

Quote:
Originally Posted by Android2001 View Post
How many people can live in one of those residential supertalls? It's gotta be a huge amount equivalent to several city blocks of your average townhouse. Crazy stuff.
Not many. A lot of the units are floor-through meaning that you get one or two per floor. This is exclusivity on a global scale hence the moniker "Billionaire's Row".
__________________
We are floating in space...

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 04:12 AM   #6391
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,531
Likes (Received): 22575

Quote:
Originally Posted by Android2001 View Post
How many people can live in one of those residential supertalls? It's gotta be a huge amount equivalent to several city blocks of your average townhouse. Crazy stuff.
i generally assume 1 person per unit/apartment, though in reality its probably much lower. Way less than 100 for sure.
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 07:29 PM   #6392
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

53W53 Developer Plans 15 Story Senior Housing Project in Midtown
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/4/20/11467...ousing-midtown


Quote:
Hines, the developer behind such high-end Manhattan skyscrapers as Jean Nouvel's MoMA-adjacent 53W53 and the Jenga-esque 56 Leonard Street, is going in a bit of a different direction for its next project. Bloomberg reports that the developer has partnered with health care facilitator Welltower to create a new senior housing building on East 56th Street and Lexington Avenue. The new building, which will rise 15 stories, will replace a TGI Friday's. As Bloomberg notes, the neighborhood is better known for its pricey towers—including 53W53—and indeed, this new building would be only a few blocks from 432 Park Avenue.

The two companies noted that New York's older residents have been "vastly underserved," and that their property hopes to ameliorate that problem. "We expect this project will support a more-connected model for health-care delivery to seniors," an SVP for Welltower said in a statement.
And the original Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...es-for-seniors
__________________
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 09:05 PM   #6393
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53453

LPC Approves Brooklyn’s First 1,000+ Foot Tower



desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 09:23 PM   #6394
towerpower123
Let's Revive our Cities
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howell/Newark, NJ
Posts: 2,244
Likes (Received): 4181

Huge news for that one! Bring on the piling machines
__________________
If I don't say otherwise, all of my images are on my blog,
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot.com/?view=sidebar

186 Newark, NJ Development projects MAPPED
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1874870
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot....l?view=sidebar

See my DeviantArt account at http://towerpower123.deviantart.com/

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
towerpower123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 09:30 PM   #6395
LCIII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Live in NYC, heart in Seattle
Posts: 7,715
Likes (Received): 2714

I can never get enough of this tower. Will absolutely become an icon.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
LCIII no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 10:08 PM   #6396
BrickellResidence
Moderator
 
BrickellResidence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 5,385
Likes (Received): 6581

damn thats one Iconic design!
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
BrickellResidence está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2016, 10:44 PM   #6397
Momosty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 16

Awesome news !
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Momosty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2016, 04:49 AM   #6398
storms991
Leicester:NY:London
 
storms991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 492
Likes (Received): 81

The NYYimby article on the new brooklyn supertall is quite fantastic. Goes into detail on how they seamlessly integrated the Dime Savings Bank building into the design.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/04/land...extension.html
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
storms991 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2016, 06:52 AM   #6399
streetscapeer
hmmm......
 
streetscapeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 5,912
Likes (Received): 25292

Awesome! I love how it will also integrate with the historic structure next door:






__________________
streetscapeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2016, 06:23 PM   #6400
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,669
Likes (Received): 2629

Quote:
Originally Posted by streetscapeer View Post
But 220 Central Park South might get lost in the behemoths going up nearby :P


Huh, what's that next to 10 HY?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
new york city

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 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu