HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2007, 11:28 PM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
NEW YORK (BROOKLYN) | Forte Condo | HEIGHT | 30 FLOORS

30 floors, 108 units, FXFOWLE architects.
Ft. Greene (edge of DT) Brooklyn on Fulton St. @ Ashland Pl.
http://www.fortecondo.com

03/22/07 (topped out)







This BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) theater and exhibit space wraps around the project


     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2007, 11:35 PM
tackledspoon's Avatar
tackledspoon tackledspoon is offline
Candy Jail
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,943
Even though it's downtown, I hate to see this kind of development in Brookyln. I haven't seen any full renderings, but not only is this out of scale with the neighborhood, but the design is fairly bland. The Manhattanization of Brooklyn is idiotic and shows no respect for the borough's history. Projects need to be tailored to the neighborhoods in which they are occuring. A building like this would look fine in midtown, but bland skyscrapers like this one do not represent smart development for Brooklyn. Progress does not, strictly speaking, mean "being more like Manhattan."
__________________
Colin
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2007, 11:41 PM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
What a beautiful project. Look at the other nondescript lowrises in the area. This thing just uplifts the entire area and brings it up to date.

Wonderful. Bring them on!
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 12:25 AM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,703
Whoa, I totally missed that one. Don't think I even saw it when looking over Brooklyn lately, and that's surprising because this one is pretty tall and prominent. Great addition to the skyline, should go well with Ratner's Atlantic Yards.
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 12:28 AM
tackledspoon's Avatar
tackledspoon tackledspoon is offline
Candy Jail
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
What a beautiful project. Look at the other nondescript lowrises in the area. This thing just uplifts the entire area and brings it up to date.

Wonderful. Bring them on!
The lowrises in Fort Green and downtown Brooklyn are far from nondescript. What pictures were you looking at? In addition to their beauty, they're functional and (obviously) in scale with the neighborhood.
This tower, by contrast, is totally out of scale with and disrupts the fabric of the neighborhood. The residents it's likely to draw in are not going to participate in the neighborhood, nor is the building's design conducive to such activity. The ready availability of most necessities within the building (gym, ground-floor retail etc...) encourages residents to leave the building only to go to work, presumably in Manhattan. Hell, the sheer height of the building is a wonderful symbol for the type of alienation that it's going to breed.
Having a massive hardon for anything tall, regardless of whether the development is sensible is just as bad as embracing nimbyism and sprawl.
__________________
Colin
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 12:29 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
Here's a back view of the Forté, including the nearby WSB (being converted to condos)
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 12:31 AM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
A modern day Flatiron Building.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 12:35 AM
tackledspoon's Avatar
tackledspoon tackledspoon is offline
Candy Jail
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecom View Post
Whoa, I totally missed that one. Don't think I even saw it when looking over Brooklyn lately, and that's surprising because this one is pretty tall and prominent. Great addition to the skyline, should go well with Ratner's Atlantic Yards.
... and now they're voicing support for the Atlantic Yards Project. I know that this is a skyscraper enthusiasts website, but you all do understand that developments of this kind can have and extremely negative impact on the neighborhood. As a former Brooklynite, I'd expect you to understand why the Ratner plan is an abomination.
__________________
Colin
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 1:26 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
The lowrises in Fort Green and downtown Brooklyn are far from nondescript. What pictures were you looking at?
This one:


Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
In addition to their beauty, they're functional and (obviously) in scale with the neighborhood.
Some of them might be beautiful but they are very common not only in Brooklyn but if you'd bother to look at other cities, they are common there too. In other words, there's nothing special about them.

This new tower will function just like the lowrises that you love: residents in the apartments above, retail on the groundfloor. Not only will it function much the same way, but it will do it much more efficiently.

In case, you're not aware, the amount of developable land in Brooklyn is finite. If you don't build up, the land will become so expensive and the available housing stock so exclusive that the very people you hate to see live in this tower, will be the only people that can afford to live in Brooklyn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
This tower, by contrast, is totally out of scale with and disrupts the fabric of the neighborhood.
The Eiffel tower is out of scale with the rest of Paris but try to imagine Paris without it. And don't bring that "oh but this ain't no Eiffel tower" BS because you're talking about the scale and disruption nonsense and the Eiffel is guilty of both of those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
The residents it's likely to draw in are not going to participate in the neighborhood, nor is the building's design conducive to such activity.
I'm sure the two story piece of junk with a graffiti filled blank wall on Ashland that was here before was a better contributor to the neighborhood.

There will be a few hundred people living there, and who knows some might even be people from the area right now. How do you know they are not going to shop and spend time in the neighborhood?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
The ready availability of most necessities within the building (gym, ground-floor retail etc...) encourages residents to leave the building only to go to work, presumably in Manhattan. Hell, the sheer height of the building is a wonderful symbol for the type of alienation that it's going to breed.
Having a massive hardon for anything tall, regardless of whether the development is sensible is just as bad as embracing nimbyism and sprawl.
Only in your head is it not sensible. Brooklyn has no choice but to build up. It has nothing to do with Manhattan.

If there was no Manhattan, Brooklyn would be its own city and it would have tall towers anyway.

People like you are the very people that have kept Brooklyn back instead of allowing it to grow and prosper and come into its own. Classic irrational NIMBYism.

Last edited by antinimby; Mar 23, 2007 at 1:38 AM.
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 1:35 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
^in addition, this was a parking lot in a very seedy area that stood vacant for years. This isn't the traditional Fort Greene, this is a transitional area with warehouses, gas stations and of course BAM- which is now becoming an 'arts district'. There are already plenty of highrises around as well.
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 2:11 AM
tackledspoon's Avatar
tackledspoon tackledspoon is offline
Candy Jail
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroy Wen View Post
^in addition, this was a parking lot in a very seedy area that stood vacant for years. This isn't the traditional Fort Greene, this is a transitional area with warehouses, gas stations and of course BAM- which is now becoming an 'arts district'. There are already plenty of highrises around as well.
Highrises and luxury skyscrapers are very different. You could build a fairly large high rise on this lot without picking away at the fabric of the neighborhood. I'm all for the development of Brooklyn, but I think it should be done with consideration for the traditional neighborhood structure of Brooklyn. I actually did look into the site and see that it was built on a vacant lot, but the fact that it's an improvement over a vacant lot doesn't justify the scaling of the project or the type of development that it's going to encourage in the area.

Quote:
Some of them might be beautiful but they are very common not only in Brooklyn but if you'd bother to look at other cities, they are common theretoo. In other words, there's nothing special about them
I'll ask that you not put words in my mouth. I never claimed that the existing building stock in Fort Greene was unique, only that it was beautiful and functional. For large-scale projects, I believe that uniqueness is a necessity, but for low and mid-rise developments, functionality is king. These buildings are nothing special in isolation, but working together, they provide an excellent urban fabric.
Quote:
In case, you're not aware, the amount of developable land in Brooklyn is finite. If you don't build up, the land will become so expensive and the available housing stock so exclusive that the very people you hate to see live in this tower, will be the only people that can afford to live in Brooklyn.
Buildings like this one are not designed to lower demand or price. Building a 30-story luxury condominium tower in the middle of a (relatively) reasonably priced neighborhood is more likely to create more demand for similar projects and thus lead to the further degradation of the neighborhood and the pricing-out of people who have lived there for decades. Brooklyn does have to build up, but it doesn't need to build skyscrapers, particularly ones of the luxury variety.
Quote:
I'm sure the two story piece of junk with a graffiti filled blank wall on Ashland that was here before was a better contributor to the neighborhood.
Again with the putting words in my mouth. I am not anti-development and I don't deny that this is an improvement over an empty lot, but almost anything would have been an improvement.

Quote:
There will be a few hundred people living there, and who knows some might even be people from the area right now. How do you know they are not going to shop and spend time in the neighborhood?
Go take a walk through Hell's Kitchen, where projects like this are a dime a dozen. On blocks dominated by these things, even when there's retail in the ground floor, street activity is minimal. Time and again, studies have shown that big, filing cabinet-style residential towers encourage insularity.

Quote:
If there was no Manhattan, Brooklyn would be its own city and it would have tall towers anyway.
This is totally irrelevant. It didn't develop that way and any argument based on what would have happend if it had is totally unpersuasive, as its base lies outside of reality.
__________________
Colin
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 2:38 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
Highrises and luxury skyscrapers are very different. You could build a fairly large high rise on this lot without picking away at the fabric of the neighborhood. I'm all for the development of Brooklyn, but I think it should be done with consideration for the traditional neighborhood structure of Brooklyn. I actually did look into the site and see that it was built on a vacant lot, but the fact that it's an improvement over a vacant lot doesn't justify the scaling of the project or the type of development that it's going to encourage in the area.
How is this picking away at the fabric? If the original fabric included rundown buildings and empty, trash-strewn lots, could that fabric be that good to begin with?

And you need to explain further the differences between a highrise and a luxury skyscraper that you are claiming are so different. I don't see what the difference is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
I'll ask that you not put words in my mouth. I never claimed that the existing building stock in Fort Greene was unique, only that it was beautiful and functional.
And as I showed you, quite a few of them were NOT beautiful but actually made the neighborhood look cheap and decrepit. Kroy didn't take photos of those places but I know there are plenty of those rundown junks there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
For large-scale projects, I believe that uniqueness is a necessity, but for low and mid-rise developments, functionality is king. These buildings are nothing special in isolation, but working together, they provide an excellent urban fabric.
This building is unique both in it's shape and it's modernity. There's nothing around there that looks even remotely like it. And even if it wasn't unique, there's no need to make every highrise unique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
Buildings like this one are not designed to lower demand or price. Building a 30-story luxury condominium tower in the middle of a (relatively) reasonably priced neighborhood is more likely to create more demand for similar projects and thus lead to the further degradation of the neighborhood and the pricing-out of people who have lived there for decades. Brooklyn does have to build up, but it doesn't need to build skyscrapers, particularly ones of the luxury variety.
Ah, so now we come to the real reason behind your disdain for this building. All that "out of scale" or "destroying the fabric of the neighborhood" BS was just that: bull.

You are deadly afraid of gentrification. The problem with that kind of logic is that it is inherently flawed. Let me tell you how.

Let's say, they ban all these new luxury towers here.

Do you think that people with money are all of a sudden going to overlook Fort Greene and go elsewhere? No. They're going to rehab/tear down the charming lowrises and the rent would go up just as, if not faster than before the ban. Read Greenwich Village, SOHO, Tribeca, etc.

People with lots of money are willing and able to move into this city. There are no parts (other than the really bad areas) that are offlimits. The only people losing are the very people you are worrying about. Towers or no towers, this is going to happen but with towers this is at least going to slow it down somewhat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
Again with the putting words in my mouth. I am not anti-development and I don't deny that this is an improvement over an empty lot, but almost anything would have been an improvement.
Frankly I don't care what you are. You may not be anti-development but you are a classic NIMBY. "Build the towers in Manhattan, I don't care but don't build it here in Brooklyn." If that is not NIMBYism, tell me what is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
Go take a walk through Hell's Kitchen, where projects like this are a dime a dozen. On blocks dominated by these things, even when there's retail in the ground floor, street activity is minimal. Time and again, studies have shown that big, filing cabinet-style residential towers encourage insularity.
Hell's Kitchen was downzoned and towers like this does not exist in it. The only towers are on the fringes of Times Square on Eighth Ave.

A block on Eighth Ave. has more pedestrian activity than all of Ft. Greene put together.

Last edited by antinimby; Mar 23, 2007 at 2:44 AM.
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 4:32 AM
tackledspoon's Avatar
tackledspoon tackledspoon is offline
Candy Jail
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Frankly I don't care what you are. You may not be anti-development but you are a classic NIMBY. "Build the towers in Manhattan, I don't care but don't build it here in Brooklyn." If that is not NIMBYism, tell me what is.
You've already resorted to name-calling, quite erroneously, might I add- I live in Manhattan and I was raised in Queens. Never in my life have I taken up residence in Brooklyn. I have nothing invested in the state or fate of Brooklyn. I just happen to think that a project like this, which on its own is only minorly offensive, can set things off down a slippery slope of gentrification, displacement and degradation of the neighborhood. It's not bullshit at all. Pick up an urban planning textbook or Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" and get a fucking clue.
This is not NIMBYism- it's based in an understanding, rather than a total misunderstanding of good planning, development and growth. I honestly don't believe that a project like this will be good for Fort Green. It may bring great economic prosperity to the area, but, a city's success cannot be measured by economic prosperity alone. Cities are constituted by the people who inhabit them just as much as the buildings that compose their urban fabric and the two are extremely interrelated.
I also want to stress again that I'm not anti-development, nor am I opposed to tearing down shitty old warehouses and abandoned buildings to create new residences. The "problem" of housing wealtheir newcomers can be solved without resorting to putting up skyscrapers in typically low and mid-rise neighborhoods. One need look no further than density statistics for the Village and Lower East Side to see the level of density that can be achieved with the erection of very few skyscrapers.
If you don't know the difference between a highrise and a skyscraper, then I don't think that this is the place for you. All skyscrapers are highrises, but not all highrises are skyscrapers. For example, the other project that Kroy posted (the sixteen story Meier tower) is a highrise, but you couldn't make much of a case for it as a skyscraper. It doesn't impose like this tower. It keeps everything street-centric and just has more of an egalitarian feel.
__________________
Colin
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 4:39 AM
tackledspoon's Avatar
tackledspoon tackledspoon is offline
Candy Jail
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
Hell's Kitchen was downzoned and towers like this does not exist in it. The only towers are on the fringes of Times Square on Eighth Ave.
I'm talking about the area west of 9th ave, which is crawling with residential skyscrapers. Ever since the zoning laws changed after 9/11, there's been a huge boom in that area.

Quote:
A block on Eighth Ave. has more pedestrian activity than all of Ft. Greene put together.
Once again, irrelevant- Eighth ave is jampacked during the day with business men, tourists and retail workers, who all return to their homes at night. Considering the population density of the area, residents make up a very small fraction of the pedestrian traffic.
__________________
Colin
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 5:41 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
Here is the current state of Atlantic Yards (03/22/07) I made the rounds today:

those are all new 'affordable' townhomes- and not very attractive- none will be torn down for Ratner's plan.

















So, tackledspoon, you're saying you want more of this banal crap? Because if Ratner's plan isn't built the rail yards will stay just as they are, and nothing will be built- all the new affordable housing already is right up against the site, and perhaps trying to replicate the 1890's is a little backwards in 2007? And what about the thousands of jobs, and all the money and pride that comes from having an NBA team?

Seriously- you'd rather have tens more faux 1890's townhouses for Brooklyn, over thousands of jobs, hundreds of affordable highrise units and a sense of pride?
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 5:59 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
*BTW- those new townhouses may look great on the surface, but notice they hide big parking lots behind them* Something Ratner's plan would bury. They have nothing in common with Park Slope, or Fort Greene's brownstones.

Which is why I'm quite tired of this "develop, don't destroy" banana nonesense.
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 6:21 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
You've already resorted to name-calling, quite erroneously, might I add- I live in Manhattan and I was raised in Queens. Never in my life have I taken up residence in Brooklyn. I have nothing invested in the state or fate of Brooklyn.
Regardless of where you reside (if I'm to believe what you said), your position mirrors exactly those of the NIMBYs. So my calling you a NIMBY is actually not that far-fetch.

Tell me something, why are tall towers here inappropriate? I know you're going to say, "well, the area is mostly lowrises and this is out-of-scale..." but I already used the Paris example, to which you still have yet to refute.

I want to add that all highrise districts evolve from lowrise areas. At some point, there had to be a first tall tower. With your logic of not allowing anything tall to rise in predominantly lowrise areas, there'd be no highrises whatsoever, anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
I just happen to think that a project like this, which on its own is only minorly offensive, can set things off down a slippery slope of gentrification, displacement and degradation of the neighborhood. It's not bullshit at all.
It's based on your ignorance of economics and the law of supply and demand so yes, it is very much BS.

I told you that putting a cap on height and thus the supply of new housing units, will only hasten gentrification. New York is a very desirable city for many people to live in, demand will always be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
Pick up an urban planning textbook or Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" and get a fucking clue.
Okay, I don't have a clue but you obviously do, so tell me what am I not understanding?

Look at the title of that Jane Jacobs book: Life and Death of ...

You even said below that this tower will bring prosperity to Fort Greene. I can't fathom somehow prosperity can bring death to the city? Is that even logical to you?

The empty lots and graffiti-filled warehouses represent life, while prosperity represents death? What kind of twisted world are you living in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
This is not NIMBYism- it's based in an understanding, rather than a total misunderstanding of good planning, development and growth.
Yeah, and you know what is good planning and what is not, right?

Judging from what you've said so far, it's safe to say you are quite clueless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
I honestly don't believe that a project like this will be good for Fort Green. It may bring great economic prosperity to the area, but, a city's success cannot be measured by economic prosperity alone.
In this one statement, you have actually managed to contradict yourself. Economic prosperity won't be good for Fort Greene? So, poverty is best, right? Yeah, we're dealing with a good planning understanding genius here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
Cities are constituted by the people who inhabit them just as much as the buildings that compose their urban fabric and the two are extremely interrelated.
Wow. So cities are inhabited by the people that live there? How did you ever figure that one out? Pure genius.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
I also want to stress again that I'm not anti-development, nor am I opposed to tearing down shitty old warehouses and abandoned buildings to create new residences. The "problem" of housing wealtheir newcomers can be solved without resorting to putting up skyscrapers in typically low and mid-rise neighborhoods. One need look no further than density statistics for the Village and Lower East Side to see the level of density that can be achieved with the erection of very few skyscrapers.
Funny you should use these two areas as your examples of good planning when these two places have been the poster childs for gentrification.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
If you don't know the difference between a highrise and a skyscraper, then I don't think that this is the place for you. All skyscrapers are highrises, but not all highrises are skyscrapers. For example, the other project that Kroy posted (the sixteen story Meier tower) is a highrise, but you couldn't make much of a case for it as a skyscraper.
You were the one that made it unclear. I merely asked you to clarify.

On one hand you referred to this as being a luxury skyscraper but then said that a large highrise is preferrable. If this tower is not a large highrise, then tell me what is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon View Post
It doesn't impose like this tower. It keeps everything street-centric and just has more of an egalitarian feel.
It doesn't seem imposing to me. Maybe it's just you and people like you that it does. I'd get my head examined if I were you if a 30-story building can get you that bent out of shape.

Last edited by antinimby; Mar 23, 2007 at 6:31 AM.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 10:43 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
Quote:
If you don't know the difference between a highrise and a skyscraper, then I don't think that this is the place for you. All skyscrapers are highrises, but not all highrises are skyscrapers. For example, the other project that Kroy posted (the sixteen story Meier tower) is a highrise, but you couldn't make much of a case for it as a skyscraper.
'On Prospect Park'- where the purchase price begins at $2m and goes to $16m? Doesn't this go completely against your anti-gentrification diatribe? So what- you like wealthy people in shorter buildings, love poor people in new, crappy three-floor walkups and hate the middle class in highrises?

I don't get it. And neither does Marty Markowitz (Brooklyn Borough President)- who's all for this tower, many others, and the Atlantic Yards project.
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 11:29 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 41,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroy Wen View Post
30 floors, 108 units, FXFOWLE architects.
Ft. Greene (edge of DT) Brooklyn on Fulton St. @ Ashland Pl.
http://www.fortecondo.com

03/22/07 (topped out)



Love it. We've been missing a lot of Brooklyn construction.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2007, 11:31 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 41,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroy Wen View Post
*BTW- those new townhouses may look great on the surface, but notice they hide big parking lots behind them* Something Ratner's plan would bury. They have nothing in common with Park Slope, or Fort Greene's brownstones.

Which is why I'm quite tired of this "develop, don't destroy" banana nonesense.
Those people against it would be against anything there, it hardly matters.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:33 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.