NEW YORK | 36 Central Park So. (Park Lane development) | FT | FLOORS

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by sparkling

Not sure if this was covered in another thread, but here is a little something about 16 W. 57th in case not everybody is aware what's going on there
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/09/what-could-have-been-16-west-57th-street.html

BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON SEPTEMBER 12TH 2014

Add more stone or brick an we have a winner. The massing is great but the facade in context with the street is way off as rendered.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Another roadblock in the stuck up, grotesque looking female and old men NIMBY's attempts to halt progress.

The tower itself isn't really worth landmarking. The Plaza or Waldorf of course, but not this...

LOL, you guys are harsh. Of course it isn't worth landmarking, the effort was put forth to block the tower, and the gullible people at that meeting are there mainly for that reason. It's not that they actually think it's something worth preserving, they don't want anything new built. They never do. They'd landmark a garbage can it they thought it would stop development. It's a shame that's what the landmarking process has come down to. But those interested in preserving true landmarks need to hijack the process back, it's become a joke.

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

The Park Lane in no way deserves landmark status. However, the location certainly warrants a design review and contextual requirements. That massing model almost killed me. There should be much more stone than glass on whatever is built there. I get NY isnt a museum (everyone says that to defend every crappy design) but some places deserve more attention and better architecture than others. This location deserves the best, not the typical mediocre glass box.

Well, for one thing, everyone says that because it's true. As far as "crappy design", you people who claim to be for preserving "landmarks" always throw in hypocritical comments about design. What that means is you would throw the "landmark" in the garbage with everything else if the design replacing it was something you thought worth while. That puts you in the boat with everyone else, who're you kidding.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, for one thing, everyone says that because it's true. As far as "crappy design", you people who claim to be for preserving "landmarks" always throw in hypocritical comments about design. What that means is you would throw the "landmark" in the garbage with everything else if the design replacing it was something you thought worth while. That puts you in the boat with everyone else, who're you kidding.

Where in my comment did I say the Park Lane should be landmarked? I AGREE it should not be.

However, the argument that "NY is not a museum" does nothing to asuage my resistance against bad architecture. Given the choice between keeping a non-landmark worthy yet well designed structure or a brand new eye sore, I'll take the former. That's not an argument against progress or for the embalming of NY, but for maintaining a certain amount of architectural integrity in the city. Especially in a prime location around Central Park.

As for the Park Lane, there is no rendering so clearly my concerns are for naught. However, I do hope the actual building is not as glassy as the massing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Add more stone or brick an we have a winner. The massing is great but the facade in context with the street is way off as rendered.

That rendering was for a long-ago proposal for an assemblage that no longer exists, for a developer no longer involved.

Whatever is built on 57th Street, just behind the existing Park Lane, will have no resemblance to that proposal.