Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
Are you so blindly dedicated to a relic of the past that you have forgotten the reason it was placed there in the first place? We don't know what the ultimate height of this building will be. And that doesn't matter because it will be 2.5 msf of new office space in a district where most of it is approaching the century mark.
Sure the bulding could be saved, sure it could be converted to residential. Why does NY have to be a home for so many businesses at all? Why cant it be more like other cities whose downtowns have seen far better days, if they still exist at all? The answer - because it's New York, where the top companies demand the top or the best the city has to offer. They could "settle" for anything, anywhere. But you see, New York is determined to keep its top central business district where it is - viable. If that means replacing a relic built more than half a century ago with nearly twice the amount of moden office space - built to demand - then that's what you do.
|
Fair enough. At the end of the day though, my feelings about this project will really depend on the appearance of the new tower vs. the current one, as opposed to any kind of nostalgia. If we end up with something the caliber of One Vanderbilt here, I suppose I can reconcile myself with the loss of the current building. If we’re going to wind up with a Chinese-style supertall in a plaza that completely destroys the Park Avenue canyon effect, or god forbid a blue-glass monolith like 3 Hudson Boulevard, not so much.
Also, Prezrezc, were you quoting Robert Moses there? I read that he used to respond to critics of his slum clearance program by saying “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”
Anyways, I’m just gonna let this one play out (unless of course the replacement building is really, regrettably, unequivocally ugly).