Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000
Right, they've said they want something like BPC but nothing regarding height, or density has been discussed, so before we say this project lacks vision or ambition lets wait for that, (keep in mind they're tearing down a nearly 1,000,000 square foot convention center to build a whole new neighborhood, inside of what will be a whole new neighborhood). If this project has anything it's ambition.
Plus, this is just part of the whole far west side redevelopment. So, even if we do get a BPC in terms of height, a handful of 500+ footers with smaller hotels and residential buildings, this new BPC could very well serve the same purpose as the existing one downtown, which is a complimentary aspect of the skyline, a sort of escalator to much larger buildings behind them where lot after lot is zoned for giant high rises.
|
Just to note, those large buildings behind have restricted FAR and you won't see a hypertall building there.
Anyway, why waste such prime space on small buildings? Why not zone so that if someone wants to build an extremely tall building, it will be allowed? Why would they want to restrict development here? I mean, there are no NIMBYs in this area and I don't get it, sorry. If some foreign investor from China or Dubai wanted to build the tallest building in Manhattan, why not allow some sites for that without restricting building size? Why so conservative? Is it because they want to spread development around the city and not have it all clustered over there, i.e, the new midtown east re-zoning proposal?
When you say they could keep the javitz area for lower buildings to complement the taller buildings behind, I don't understand why they would do that. Why would they have a bias towards those lots, and neuter the development capacity on the river? I ask this, because if this is the case, we won't be seeing any 600m buildings in NYC because those sites would not allow for it. Who says it is the best idea to have smaller buildings on the river anyway just because it has a nice aesthetic effect? HK seems to have manged nicely without that, hasn't it? Tall buildings on the water are the most dramatic and impressive as seen from afar.
I think they should be more open when it comes to zoning and stop trying to engineering everything to the letter. If they allowed taller buildings on the Javitz site, the developers on the lots behind would be forced to consider building taller if they wanted views. They should just let competition decide and stop being so restrictive. I have a terrible feeling they are going to waste this space on tiny high rises just because it 'looks good' or that it worked 'down there'.
Threaded Mode