Quote:
Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler
Better no development at all than blind development.
|
Right, because Paris set a great precedent when they froze all highrise development there. A decision so longlasting and insightful that it was recently repealed. To say 'no development' is to say 'fuck you if you don't have a place to live and can't afford new digs.'
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ersbenzaehler
This tower is nothin but a disgrace to the most historical skyscraper ensemble of the world.
|
I'm sure you've been to Madison Square several times and thus have a very comprehensive understanding of how One Madison Square single-handedly destroyed the historic vibe there as well as essentially ruined the entire neighbourhood by its presence. Oh wait, I'm almost positive you have not, as this building takes up the width of about one tenement and is hardly the only modern building in the area. Also, if we judged every new building as 'a disgrace to the historical skyscraper ensemble of the world' we would have never built our Singer Buildings, Woolworth Buildings, Chrysler Buildings, Empire State Buildings, World Trade Centers or really any other skyscraper built after 1900 for that matter. And I'm sure even then people like you would've said that skyscrapers themselves are a disgrace to historical architecture and conventional urbanity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ersbenzaehler
They could have build it elsewhere and spoil some 70s-apartment blocks - but why here?
|
Why here? Because there is demand for luxury housing here. Just because a bleeding heart architect might want to see some shitty '70s apt blocks get replaced doesn't mean a developer or potential buyers do. It's just idealism. The places in Manhattan where there are huge complexes of apartments (Stuy-Town, Peter Cooper Village, etc.) are worlds apart from 23rd and Broadway.