Manhattan 2050

[Krases]

Originally Posted by wjfox2004

Has anyone considered the possibility that cities may start to plateau in terms of skyscraper development?

In the future, technology and telecommuting could fundamentally alter the nature of real estate.

There will be an eventual merger of the human brain and the Internet, combined with the use of highly convincing VR environments (extremely likely by 2050). This could lead to a massive decentralization of office work. Factor in the use of AI - replacing many functions currently performed by brokers, loan writers, traders, etc. - and you have plummeting demand for office space.

I think you might see more residential towers instead of office space. Ultimately if VR completely takes over, cities would look like giant super efficient hives. But if VR becomes just another form of socializing you might see more community in major cities.

[brickell]

But where will the hipsters live?
Union City? Ronkonkoma? Buffalo?

[Matty]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

It has and always will be Manhattan-centric... that is why it is New York City, and not Brooklyn or Queens or the Bronx...

The other boroughs might grow population/density wise but they will never become more powerful/influential relative to what they are now, as Manhattan is and always will be significantly denser/the center of everything.

I was presenting my ideal. To me there's little point other than vanity in wanting most of future development and growth in Manhattan. Why, just for Manhattan to be denser for density's sake? What I'm looking for is polycentricity. As I stated in my post, I see Manhattan as still being the main core of this city. It's inevitable. But I find this city is far too centralized.

Manhattan isn't the "center of everything", anyway. Unless you're a tourist.

[Dac150]

Overall I don’t think there are going to be any real dramatic changes. I do believe that there will be many improvements and additions across the board, but nothing too drastic or eye opening. In all honestly this scenario is only 40 so years away, a shorter time than you think.

Manhattan was certainly different 40 years ago in the 1970’s, but short of additional skyscrapers, some new green initiatives, population growth and a much declined crime rate the city by and large doesn’t appear from a far too different. There are many visual changes, but it’s nothing like the Jetsons….

The city has come a long way since then, and I believe it will go even further, but hopefully in the right direction. We’re in a decent spot right now, you can almost walk anywhere and feel safe, the transit system is pretty efficient and the city itself is overall fairly clean.

Hopefully this current environment in NYC will carry into 2050 and beyond.

Manhattan as itself:

-New and renovated infrastructure / mass transit
-A developed Westside as an office and residential district
-More preservation of early – mid 20th century structures
-Potential conversions of mid 20th century office buildings into residential
-A gradually inclined population

Boroughs & Outskirts:

-New and renovated infrastructure / mass transit
-More development in places such as LIC, Downtown Brooklyn, Jersey City, Newark, White Plains, New Rochelle, Stamford, etc.
-Potentially new and expanded airports
-A gradually inclined population

[PhillyVegan]

Originally Posted by CGII

Skyscrapers exist in every neighbourhood of Manhattan; they are not restricted by this alleged geologic impediment. Lower Manhattan is built much taller because it is the origin of the city [the most established commercial district in the city] and Midtown is built much taller because both majour train stations exist there, making commercial space there more valuable. The lack of skyscrapers between Midtown and Downtown has very little to do with bedrock depth.

I wasn't saying it was impossible, but to back up my claim, here's a statement from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation website:

Manhattan schist is found at various depths–from 18 feet below the surface in Times Square to 260 feet below in Greenwich Village. Where bedrock is far below the surface, skyscrapers are not practical because it is too difficult to reach the schist that provides structural stability and support. Consequently, there are few tall buildings in Greenwich Village, but skyscrapers stand in dense clusters in midtown where schist lies close to the surface. The schist formations in J. Hood Wright Park display a rock whose importance cannot be overestimated. New York City reaches its towering heights because of this strong foundation.

[CGII]

Yes, it's true bedrock is deeper between Midtown and Downtown, however this has not prevented skyscrapers from happening there. Very very tall skyscrapers exist in Midtown and Downtown for real estate reasons, not geological ones, because skyscrapers that require bedrock foundations are everywhere anyways.


cyburbia.org

cyburbia.org

cyburbia.org

rob.hilluva.com

wiredny.com

[Krases]

The question one should be asking isn't "what will Manhatten look like in 2050". I would like to know what Manhattan SHOULD look like in 2050

[Crawford]

The bedrock discussion is all based on a myth.

The area between Midtown and Wall Street has lots of highrises of all ages, and there are no serious soil issues that prevent highrise construction. Yes, the bedrock is somewhat thinner than in other areas, but it is still damn thick relative to most cities.

It has nothing at all to do with highrises anyways. You can build a skyscraper on swampland if you so choose.

As to why there are more very tall buildings in Midtown and Wall Street? Well, Midtown is the main business center, and Wall Street is the original business center.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by brickell

But where will the hipsters live?
Union City? Ronkonkoma? Buffalo?

Union City already has hipsters. It looks like a Brooklyn neighborhood.

[MolsonExport]

Manhattan 2050: The Freedom Tower nears completion.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The bedrock discussion is all based on a myth.

The area between Midtown and Wall Street has lots of highrises of all ages, and there are no serious soil issues that prevent highrise construction. Yes, the bedrock is somewhat thinner than in other areas, but it is still damn thick relative to most cities.

I believe your understanding of the discussion of bedrock and its role in Manhattan is flawed.

The thickness of bedrock is not at issue. The issues is how far below the surface the bedrock begins. In this discssion, when someone says "bedrock is deeper" somewhere, they mean that builders would have to drill or excavate farther before they reach bedrock, not that the bedrock itself varies in thickness by any important amount.

Originally Posted by Crawford

It has nothing at all to do with highrises anyways. You can build a skyscraper on swampland if you so choose. ...

While this is true, for highrises over a certain height you more or less have to anchor them to bedrock to maintain the necessary stability. Chicago has hundreds of tall buildings with foundations that do not stretch to bedrock, but are supported by pylons. So does Shanghai. But in both cities, the tallest buildings all have foundations anchored to bedrock. The farther bedrock is below the surface, the more it costs to build the necessary foundations. If bedrock were very far, the costs would start to become prohibitive. Even in Manhattan, the demand for high-cost luxury housing isn't unlimited.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Manhattan 2050: The Freedom Tower nears completion.

The real question is, which movie was right in it's depiction of the future: Terminator, the Matrix, iRobot, etc? One thing's for sure (when using movies as a predictor) - future will suck.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

The real question is, which movie was right in it's depiction of the future: Terminator, the Matrix, iRobot, etc? One thing's for sure (when using movies as a predictor) - future will suck.

But at least one couple will fall in love in the future.

[mrnyc]

hmm, off the top...many more residential towers & a few supertalls in manhattan, an overburdened and teetering transit system that cant keep up, plans for cheaper copouts like surface lightrail and brt on outer-borough city streets, 2nd ave subway down to 42nd st hopefully by then, umm....the wtc site completed, more bklyn/qns east river tower developments like in greenpoint for example, westside railyards developed, javits conventioneers strolling the northernmost section of highline park right from the door of the convention center toward downtown, more towers up around the united nations, harlem totally redeveloped and filled back out, even the south bronx will be back by then, 138th and below will have become a new ritzy meatpacking district type neighborhood, homes & lowrises continually knocked out for res apt buildings in astoria & bay ridge. whew!

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I think the entire island will be turned into a prison, run by the criminals. Then at some point the president will be taken hostage and the cops and some good guy prisoners will go in there and get 'em.

or that...!!!

[Tommy Boy]

I hope New York City is a own State and have the tallest and the biggest buildings, towers and skyscraper who has ever build in mankind and will stand as the tallest buildings for a very long long time hopefully forever and have the first mile high tower and towers over or between 3000 - 4000 feet tall . That the New York City´s demographics will continue to grow every year and be someday the largest city in the world. 2050 it could be real, but we must have the right politics, companies and visionaries to lead us to still have this position around the world, a city could or should NEVER been done or stop growing on the sides or hight.

Build more build highspeedrail also from NYC to california make USA and NYC home of the world YIIIIIIIEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH
GOD BLESS USA

Sorry for my tourist english I am a scandinavian guy

[M II A II R II K]

[M II A II R II K]

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

hmm, it would've been interesting if they had built the el subways over the sidewalks instead of down the middle of the streets, but too expensive of course.

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

robert moses wanted to build a new bridge from brooklyn to downtown manhattan like you see on the second vision,
but he got pushed back by downtowners, a rarity for a moses scheme, and the battery tunnel was built instead.

that other older bridge, which i take is from staten island to manhattan, would have truly been a ridiculous folly.
even the verrazano is probably less than half the distance of that one, plus it would have disrupted shipping.

[Krases]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Those skyways would have offered some impressive views. I also like the airships lol.

This was made in 1908 if I can read that right. Sporadic automobile presence down in the streets, instead it looks like above ground trollys and is that an above ground light rail system?

[10023]

Originally Posted by brickell

But where will the hipsters live?

By 2050 the hipsters will have been dealt with.