Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
Nah, it's the truth. They say it should be preserved, but provide no reasoning behind that logic. I'm not for just tearing down any old building just for the sake of tearing it down. Neither am I for insisting the city can't continue to grow and evolve because something was built in place earlier. If that were the case, we would have many of the buildings we adore today, including the Empire State Building. And before anyone asks, no, not all new building need to be Empire States.
New York is a "built" city, but by no means is that to say it's "done". It continues to thrive and evolve. It's a tight city of highrises and skyscrapers. And it isn't covered in open lots waiting for development. You build where you can.
|
Let's not talk in absolutes about something that's so subjective. Because it's not the truth. If this building is landmarked they'll build somewhere else in NY, recent news should tell you we don't need to worry about companies leaving - clearly. People act like if we don't let developers build their buildings right where they want them they'll pack their bags and develop in NJ or CT or Dallas. That's not the case.
We should be building outside our established business districts, because as desirable as NY is so much of it in the boroughs are underdeveloped and ugly, let's not waste the good stuff.
Left to capitalist devices NYC would just eat itself until every last sf of air rights in Manhattan were used up - eventually. Making money for developers and making a better NY are 2 different things.