^ 80 South Street? And the other one maybe 22 Thames or another 57th Street tower.
|
:previous: Very interesting, NYguy!
As the engineering technology improves, we may see taller super-skinny towers in the future. :) |
Quote:
Stern is reportedly in the running for the Juniors site in Brooklyn, maybe he wants to bring them on for that project as well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
They're back, and at it again...
http://www.mas.org/urbanplanning/accidental-skyline/ Accidental Skyline Too often, New Yorkers are caught off guard by new development in their neighborhoods. The Accidental Skyline offers tools to help demystify the city planning process and bring the public into the conversation. http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156420998/original.jpg Quote:
These people are determined to kill the real estate industry in the city, but I don't believe any of these measures will move beyond discussion. The city already has a long and complicated approvals process, and its trying to streamline that, make things better, not worse. This isn't accurate, not just height, but some location is off... http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156421049/original.jpg |
Kill that noise...............
|
If they want to put up a fight, we'll put up a fight about it. By living in New York City they should expect these kinds of projects. This pace of construction isn't going to continue forever either, this is probably the biggest surge we'll see in our lifetimes. There are plenty of places they can move where they wouldn't have to worry about such new construction. I've hear upstate New York is struggling.
|
Quote:
I just don't understand the fear of tall buildings. And this obsession with trying to be in control of air rights transfers is ridiculous. It's not as if they are creating more development rights, they are just transferring them from one location to another. What that amounts to is fewer sites being built on, for which they should be happy. But no, not content with their role in the drawn out approvals process, they want to have a say in any as-of-right development as well. |
The public is full of morons. There shouldn't be a public approval process. The average person wouldn't know a good looking project if it was right in front of them. Public opinion on real estate only hurts developments. An example could be Tower Verre. Fantastic piece of architecture, yet you have those who fought for its demise. Luckily, they failed, but at a cost of a height reduction which on that tower is a travesty.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
People have a stubborn idea of keeping things the same. They get used to seeing or doing things a certain way and they want to keep it like that regardless of whether it actually hurts growth.
Even over here in Ann Arbor, people get upset over anything taller than 5 floors. NIMBYs start making claims about the city being too crowded, too dark because of the shadows, or losing the town's historical charm. It's all about keeping the status quo. |
Looky looky...I can do an imitation of a YIMBY and an antiNIMBY at the same time:
"Hey YIMBYoid zoom-dweebie! This is you: :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall: " |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If, for example, some developer was looking to add 100,00 units of housing to CPS then I could understand opposition. You can't add that many people to a relatively small area unless it's coupled with large infrastructure improvements, but adding anywhere between 500 and 700 high end apartments will naturally, not have the same effect. As for the "THINK OF THE TREES" nonsense - it's just that. Even their own literature shows that there is very little impact created by the towers regarding shadows, and that's when they were basing their predictions off of December 21st projections - when the sun is the lowest in the sky, Rational people who don't want to be surrounded by new development would choose to do the rational thing and move out of one of the densest cities in the world. Many of these projects replace old, derelict buildings that would at best, do nothing but blight the area and at worst, create negative financial impact. Think about the huge amounts of development going on in LIC and Brooklyn. 15 years ago they were wastelands, now they're booming with growth. Why would anyone oppose that? Afraid of change? In a relatively progressive city like NYC? Were the pimps beating their hoes on the sidewalk and the needles littering the gutter something we should want to return to? I know you know this; I'm genuinely perplexed as to why people oppose development (unless of course it's for legitimate concerns like infrastructure upgrades) |
There's one thing that bothers me about this whole thing, it seems like these guys are very vocal about their opposition to these towers and feel like they can influence the process enough to end up with something that's closer to their liking.
But I'm not even sure their the majority opinion when it comes to this, I think most New Yorkers have no problem and even are in favor of taller buildings being built in areas that are already dense or underdeveloped, think of how proud ppl were to have the tallest tower in the Western Hemisphere back in NYC, 1WTC ( I'll spare the argument against that ruling). I think this point of view needs to be more vocal before those nuts start gaining ground, especially considering they have a supporter among them that can make things quite annoying (Gaele Brewer). |
Quote:
|
:previous: I've been away for a few days and return to see a bunch of off-topic nonsense about height.
Any developments around 111 W. 57th? NYguy? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, if you are a property owner you should already be aware of what is going on around you - ignorance is no excuse. |
Quote:
BTW, not to throw us too far off topic, but here's another reason things need to be kept simple... http://www.citylandnyc.org/allow-you...munity-boards/ Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.