Quote:
Originally Posted by De Minimis NY
(Post 6391490)
I am enraged that Extell can alter the skyline with the garbage they have planned at 255 W 57th while Torre Verre has been stunted from making the impact that it deserves. These kinds of missed opportunities make it hard for me not to sympathize with those that would like to see greater public control over the city's most prominent projects. People come from all over the world to see our skyline, it's one of the primary factors that make NY such a desirable place to live and visit. As such, the aesthetic appeal (or lack thereof) of these towers has a real economic impact on the city and thus the public at large.
The way to fix it is to create a commission that rewards quality design with a grant of additional air rights (similar to what is proposed for the re-zoning of midtown east, but applied throughout the city and on an ad hoc basis) and thus incentivize developers to create projects that benefit everyone. Under such a system, a developer would voluntarily choose to apply to an architecture board for the grant of air rights in lieu of (or in addition to) buying air rights from other sources.
|
The problem with all of that is you simply can't regulate "taste". People from around the world liked and came to see the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Would the design of those buildings have survived any architectural review board? Most likely not.
Skyscrapers aren't anything new in this city that has been building them for well over a century without any type of review board, and yet it's the most iconic skyline in the world. The skyline needs to evolve naturally, as it always has. There's no way to guarantee that we are going to like everything that gets built, whether there is any type of review board or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas
(Post 6391533)
I'm less bothered by supertalls around Central Park than I am seeing them surround and hide the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings.
|
It could be argued that the MAS has more of an argument there, though that argument too is one that has failed. That battle played out in the 15 Penn Plaza saga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGarcia
(Post 6391662)
The best that could be hoped for is an independent board or architects to review proposals. I'd bet though that even they would disappoint a lot of people.
|
They certainly would. Understand that architects themselves have opinions on what is good design, and what is not. And as you can see from a lot of the work being put out, more times than not, we are critical of what they see as "good" design. I put no more faith in architects than I do the average man on the street.
New York has enough regulations on what can be built. Just look at the hoops that a tower like the Tower Verre had to go through, only to be cut down. I don't know how many people here are really aware of it, but the special permit process for that tower relates
more to the design than the actual height of the tower. They could always build a taller tower, but the special permits that allow them to build a tower outside design regulations wouldn't be issued. Those permits will only be issued at the 1,050 ft height. Now you have to ask yourself, would the Empire State itself have survived such a process? How about the Chrysler? We can't say for certain about back then, but I do know if such towers were proposed today as the tallest, there certainly would be pushback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyleraf
(Post 6391779)
You guys need a system like San Diego has downtown. In Sd each of our proposals has a design review by a community board where design suggestions are made and then it goes before the downtown development group board which then will either approve the project or tell the developer to make changes and reapply. It works out pretty well.
|
See the reply above. But beyond that, such a proposal won't work for New York. There's too much going on for one thing.
Prev