[giantSwan]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

It's not either or. There are tons of shorter, ugly, squarish buildings from the 60s and 70s in midtown that would make better victims than these oldies.

I'm not saying we should keep every building that was built before 1940, but it would be nice if we tried to avoid tearing a lot of them down. Even though a lot of these buildings aren't treasures, their combined effect on the street wall throughout Manhattan is fantastic.



As I said above, it's not either or. Plenty of other cities go to much further lengths to preserve older buildings. We're talking about a handful of buildings, meanwhile there are tons of short ugly boxes in the area. I don't need a lecture on the cost of demolishing the bland boxes vs the older buildings, or why the older buildings are targeted more. I like that you can walk through most areas of midtown, and on nearly every block there's at least one pre-war building, and I'd like to keep as much of that as is reasonable.

We've had this argument before. The last time you posted a picture of Hells Kitchen on the border of Midtown (but not actually within the CBD) along with a smarmy comment. Preserving half of the buildings (or at least their facades) listed on that map will not turn Midtown in to a museum. You and I both know that.

This kind of balanced approach makes the most sense to me. Midtown needs to continue to innovate and push boundaries, but we absolutely do not want to destroy the greatest business district in the world either. Well put.