Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314
We need to completely re-think how we conduct development in this city, and it must be with an eye towards permanence. Structures should not be conceived to be disposable; everything we build should be intended to be kept for time eternal. And demolishing these old buildings is generally fine because they were not designed or expected to last for time eternal; owners generally conceived them to make a simple profit, and that is all.
|
Well, if anything is being designed towards permanence, I would say it's the skyscrapers of 57th Street. But as I mentioned earlier (or in another post), New York isn't on some grand urban renewal wave. When you walk under the scaffolding of an older building where work is being done, 9 time out of 10 (probably higher even) it is some form of restoration - not demolition. I often wonder what absurd reality some of these people who scream about the danger of New York losing itself when a building is demolished are living in. That's jus not gonna happen.. For one thing, there can be more money involved in repositioning older buildings for new and different purposes (see the Walker Tower). And the vast majority of these older buildings can't simply be replaced by new, soaring skyscrapers that can offer apartments for $50 million and above. Part of that has to do with zoning, partly with location.
But does the city need more regulation over what type of development can take place? Only if you want to see development in the city slowly shut down. It's a city where the skyline will "never stop growing", as the city council put it a couple of years ago. It should forever remain a city where you can be inspired by new things, not only relish the city of the past. That's what keeps New York fresh, that's what keeps it growing, and that's why people from around the world want to be in the Big Apple. It's why you have this wave of development along 57th Street. Do these people have to spend their money in New York? Of course not. The day when the city
can't attract these types of developments won't be a good one.
For people who are afraid of growth, and change, and something new suddenly appearing where something old was, this country is full of cities where that hardly happens. The Empire State and Chrysler Buildings were at one point in time brand new. Something older had to be taken down first though. Maybe if they had a process back then to stop demolition, or at least slow the process down, we wouldn't have an Empire State Building today. Maybe if they had some type of design regulation regarding what someone
thought was appropriate, we would have gotten a tower of less ambition. The ESB was certainly well out of scale with anything in the area, or anything anywhere for that matter.
But make no mistake, regardless of whether there is some type of uniform regulation over design, development, or whatever, you are not going to please everyone. Because not everyone agrees on what is appropriate. Not everyone can agree on design. New York is much more than 57th Street, which not that long ago in my mind was another cheesey tourists' stretch. It's not that anymore, and the city should continue to evolve naturally.