View Single Post
Old Posted Nov 28, 2012, 12:38 AM
JG573 JG573 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I disagree. I don't want Midtown to be a museum.

Losing 5% of old buildings doesn't seem very unreasonable, when the alternative you're proposing is economic decline.

Not to be rude, but you don't seem to be from around here.

Stuy Town isn't in Midtown and is nowhere near any subways or transit terminals. It would never become high-density commercial. Workers couldn't even get there.

And Stuy Town may soon be landmarked. It's considered one of the best examples of international style housing design.

It's irrelevent anyways, because the complex is occupied by thousands of rent stabilized residents, and it would take many lifetimes to clear everyone out of there legally. Oh, and the zoning would never allow what you're proposing.

This is exactly what I'm supporting and you're opposing. I said I want a mix of buildings from all eras, like in London and Paris. You're saying you want no new buildings in Midtown, and we have to save all prewars, when places like London and Paris (and, thankfully, New York) are constantly building new buildings.

Grand Central isn't moving anytime soon. You have to concentrate density near transit terminals, not in Stuyvesant Town or wherever.

At the same time, Grand Central is surrounded by 90% prewars. This means, if any buildings are built, some prewars will have to go. The alternative is a museum city.
Not from around here hmmm what about you. If i am correct there is a E 14th st subway line that borders stuy town, not to mention and i know its not in midtown i am talking in general overall in manhattan there is room to expand commercial and business districts.Not to mention more transit can be expanded.

Not no new buildings in midtown but don't tear down historic ones take down ones like the hyatt and put more visual pleasing buildings in. Replace some of the younger ones that are ugly looking not the historic ones.

London and Paris having done similar things like i am proposing. Clear land like stuy town and other various projects and make a new district instead of just keeping on tearing down historic buildings. London canary wharf and paris La defense. Which they did what i am proposing not what you are. They preserved the historic buildings in nature and clear and rezoned land like they did to build these towers without destroying there historic buildings. Get what i am saying now, hope that is much clearer. There are other areas in manhattan like one we are doing right now with the hudson yards. It is what paris and london did instead of tearing into there historic fabric. If these are still built in manhattan it won't cause economic decline.