If you had read my last post more carefully, you would have seen that I never compared New York to Houston. I simply provided an example of a city, which has shown little regard for preservation or planning. What I'm trying to say is that some buildings deserve to be preserved more than others. Given that these particular buildings are in close approximatation to Grand Central, I think a case could be made for their preservation.
Some parts of New York will change of course, however many parts of New York will always stay the same thanks to people who care about history. For some reason most people naturally value architectural history over modernism. If that wasn't the case, the capitals if Europe wouldnt be major tourist destinations.
Again I'm not disparaging contemporary architecture. Rather, what I'm saying is that there's no reason why history and modernism can't exist side by side.
Originally Posted by NYguy
^ If it never changes, that can only be a bad sign for the City, because if the economy of the City improves enough, that corner will most certainly change, as the City has for years, and will continue to do provided life goes on. And yes, even the museums change.
I love these people that come and compare Manhattan to Houston. Absolutely ridiculous, and naive in of itself. As I've said earlier, I don't want to convert this thread into a preservationist battle. New Yorks aging buildings is being discussed here:
Here we will focus on the development that will take place on this, arbuably
the most valuable development space in Manhattan. More from the transcript...
They've brought in Hines, known for developing and getting towers built, to help get the process going here. With zoning in place next year, it could probably be at least a year or two before we start seeing designs. No architect has been chosen as of yet, so there could also be another design competition. It will be very exciting watching the process here of what will no doubt be another iconic tower for the City.