Well i think the best solution is to continue the way, that hearst did with its midtown tower. Keep the old structure and build towers ontop, if its feasible and doable. So you keep the street level feeling, add new towers, enhance the quality of the outside of the old structure and modernise an area. IMO this way you also have less nimbys against you....
|
Quote:
The reason to spend money on high quality development? Its called architecture. And people pay more to live and work in it. Quote:
Does this mean that EVERYHTING needs to be preserved? No. I'm a big fan of adaptive reuse and facadectomy where appropriate. I'm pro-developement as long as its SMART development. Big towers ahve their uses, as to mid and low-rises. All of them together make a city...and they are the reason New York is an awesome place to LIVE, not just look at. Should we develop central park because its profitable to do so? Hell no. Does that mean the entire city should be park? Hell no. I don't know why it is so hard for people to conceptualize a balance between the two. |
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/the-aging-apple
The aging apple Older office stock, little commercial construction puts NYC behind global competitors when it comes to new office space http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/im...shmanchart.jpg November 01, 2010 By Peter Kiefer Quote:
|
Keep the best of the old stock...at any price. Even if that means conversion to condos/lofts. Imagine living in the Flatiron bldg.
|
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/w...XHguVWaXvB7HiJ
A wake-up call to build a modern Manhattan By STEVE CUOZZO December 16, 2011 Quote:
|
http://www.observer.com/2011/12/what...s-the-problem/
What to Do With 285 Madison: Are Our Crumbling Office Buildings the Problem? http://www.observer.com/files/2011/1...4051108880.jpg Could 3 Columbus be the answer? (NYC Architecture) http://www.observer.com/files/2011/12/pic_view1.jpg Should we tear down 285 Madison? (Property Shark) By Matt Chaban December 16, 2011 Quote:
|
So.....
You know old buildings can be upgraded and perform very well as modern office buildings. Just though I'd state the obvious. |
Looking at that 3 Columbus project... how exactly does re-cladding affect the performance of the building? Surely it would have been adequate just to gut the interior and install whatever infrastructure is necessary for modern functional office space?
The fusion of the modernist cladding with the art deco shapes and masses just doesn't look right... |
fak, i hate LEED....its so often used as justification for stupidity.....i'll move my office building from downtown to suburbs, but it will be LEED certified so it is all good...of course my 300 employees will all have to drive there now.
....i'll demolish a heritage building but its replacement will be LEED certified so its all good. anybody ever heard of embodied energy?....the greenest building is one that isn't built....or re-built. |
I have no idea why in the world someone would want to intentionally remove any of NYC's GORGEOUS old timey building stock. I'm all for new stuff as well but not if it's the cause to getting rid of some beautiful buildings.
|
^
Exactly, so many American cities destroyed most of their old historic stock of buildings, its so important for NYC to preserve what it has left. There should be new buildings but they should be carefully integrated. The NYC Landmark Preservation Commission does an incredible job of preserving large swaths of the city. |
The call to tear down even ONE Of the historical buildings, not just in NYC but ANYWHERE in the world makes ill to the stomach.
"Oh it's old, it's out of date! Wah! lets DESTROY It and build something new!" Well excuse me but I would imagine the cost of renovating, re-wiering and installing new equipment is going to be just a WEE BIT less then the cost of building a whole new building FROM SCRATCH I mean ye gods, we had this conversation in the 60's and 70's and look where THAT got us. Penn Station anyone??? |
I fail to see why a poorly maintained elevator would justify a need to tear down older commercial buildings. If owners properly maintained their equipment (as they should have) this sort of accident never would have happened. It has nothing to do with the bones of the structure. I hope vapid developers don't heed this call to tear down historic New York.
|
How much new space would be added to Manhattan if all the definite proposals and u/c projects are done?
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...028027142.html
Big Midtown Rezoning Eyed Skyline Could Change Under Plan Being Mulled to Spur Investment Around Grand Central Terminal. By ELIOT BROWN Jan 14, 2012 Quote:
|
If that plan goes through...
It will be another Holocaust unparalleled since what we were forced to endure in the 60's and 70's. Everything they are talking about. More space, better energy use, more lights... it can all be done be investing in the existing structures. The thought that you would have to level a treasure like any of the longs in that area of Manhattan makes me physically ill. You can't tell me that it is ONLY older buildings standing in their way either. I am sure there are plenty of atrocities built in the past 20 years we could sweep aside if they are in that dire need of space. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What has been unspoken is the vacancy rate in many of these older buildings is already alarmingly high. They are just not very desirable for most businesses.
The company I work for looked at a building built in 1949 that was absolutely incredible, since most of the internal solid oak fixtures on the floor were original and had been meticulously refinished in the 90's by the previous tenant, a top shelf law firm. It however took the IT Manager about half an hour to eliminate it since there was no practical way to bring fibre or PRI telephone lines to the floor, the floor load limit was also too low to accommodate the server racks. |
Quote:
I will admit, for obvious reasons, my knowledge of post war buildings is far from comprehensive, so I am not fully aware of what is considered in that area aside from the historical buildings. If most of the buildings considered are post war Big Boring Boxes then I shall hardly shed a tear to see them go to be replaced by something modern. While I have little faith in modern architects, they have at least the chance to build something better then the Big Boring Boxes of the 60's and 70's. I think my big fear is that, 'some day," something already listed as historical could have it's status revoaked and be plowed under. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.