View Single Post
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 4:38 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 24,093
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Looking at the overall proposal of this project I really hope they don't tear down these buildings. The midtown district is not going to die because we preserve buildings, that is a ridiculous claim.
If we preserve 100% of old buildings, then, yes, you will create a museum city like Venice.

The fact is that the vast majority of Manhattan is prewar architecture, and most of these older buildings aren't going anywhere.

What's wrong with having a few new buildings in the city? Why do we have to preserve everything old, when we want a dynamic, growing city? If we had this mentality decades ago, the Empire State Building would have never been built. It replaced the very attractive original Waldorf Astoria.
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Walking around New York city there PLENTY of ugly post war buildings that could be replaced for these types of skyscrapers.
And some postwar buildings will be replaced, but not all. Some postwar buildings are landmarked too, many are more valuable than the prewars (because of better floorplates and ceiling heights), and many are already built to maximum zoning.
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
We don't need to tear apart are historic ones to make room for these.
Again, the vast majority of Manhattan is prewar, so if your rule is "no destruction of any prewars" you will basically get a museum city with little to no development. Manhattan has very few parking lots (and there are essentially none in Midtown), and prewars outnumber postwars by probably 5-to-1.