View Single Post
  #266  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 5:47 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 22,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
This has a lot or relevance to manhattan as like I said there are many large areas of land with projects on them that can be used for new development and there are buildings all over the city that are post war that are so bland and terrible looking that can be torn down and used.
Could you name these "large areas of land" lacking prewars where you are proposing new development in Midtown? I can't think of even one area without prewars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Again, if your stance is all new development then you're advocating for a dead city not a museum city which there is nothing wrong with.
No one is advocating for "all new development". Most of Manhattan is already landmarked or downzoned, so you can't tear down older buildings in the vast majority of the borough.

What is wrong with 5%-10% of the buildings demolished for new construction? Even then, NYC will be a very old city, that, for U.S. standards, will be extremely historic compared to the other major cities. It will still be much closer to a Rome than a Dubai.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
A dead city with all new developments? Hmmm sounds familiar look around the country where has that got cities in the us?
I don't know what you're referring to, but I can't think of any major city in the U.S. that has as many preservation laws and regulations that prevent destruction of older buildings.

No one here wants Manhattan to look like Dallas. But we also don't want Manhattan to look like Venice. We want a diverse city, with architectural styles from all eras, rather than a museum city, with only buildings from the prewar era.