View Single Post
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 6:12 PM
JG573 JG573 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.

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.

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.
There is a lot wrong with tearing down 5%-10% of historic buildings when they can preserved and keep the strong character of the city. Those areas aren't in midtown I was talking about the ones in manhattan like stuy town and other projects that would be far more pleasing to tear down and put new developments that mold together a street fabric. The areas in midtown that you can tear down buildings are like the god awful ones in the pictures that where posted before that where post war ugly ones.

I know NYC has the tightest preservation standards but i don't want to see them go away or start getting relaxed for a big glass building like this, just because you want to see another new tall building when it can be built in areas of Manhattan that you don't need to tear down historic buildings like those to put up.

This museum city remark is absolutely ridiculous. We should preserve districts that have old buildings like midtown and allow new developments on lands that can be used like all those projects and places like the hudson yards. Which, cities do all around the world like london and paris while still preserving the historic buildings. That is making new york city a diverse city without tearing down buildings that have character and are historic. Imagine if stuy town was used for new development. I mean we would be able to have plenty of room for new developments while still keeping all these historic buildings that are being torn down around the city.