HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 5:45 PM
Eidolon's Avatar
Eidolon Eidolon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
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
I wonder if they would also rezone the Tower Verre site, seeing as it isn't too far away.

Last edited by Eidolon; Jan 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 5:54 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,386
Considering I'm a 'box fax' I'm not particularly pleased with that article . . however I completely understand why such a concept is being considered. Frankly, as long the 'classic' boxes are spared (such as the line-up that immediately follows GCT to the North) then I'd be fine.
__________________
New York, New York- A city so nice they named it twice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 3:36 PM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
BAH!

IThose problems are fed by a school that does not wish to work with what is out there but raise it to the ground to build something "Modern"

There be hundreds of old, VERY old buildings that have been brought up to date for the 21st century. Saying they can't come up to date is just damn lazy.

Really, it costs far less to bring an older building up to date then to level it and build a new one.
__________________
"God damn modern architect's and their Brtualism, and 'realism' and damn concrete boxes. Why I remember back when buildings had STYLE back when you would have real ARTISTS working away both inside and out!
"Um, aren't you like barely 30?"
"Thats not the point you damn whipper snapper!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 3:50 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
So.....

You know old buildings can be upgraded and perform very well as modern office buildings.

Just though I'd state the obvious.
But you know developers... they've got to build build build.

Never mind the bullshit talk of LEED and building efficiency... the greenest building is the one already built, and ANY of these pre war buildings can be internally modernized to today's highest standards at costs well beneath new construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 3:56 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexa007 View Post
Older office buildings generally have larger, pre-Web floor plates, which are usually unsuitable for modern, smaller companies, or simply not economically advantageous. Older buildings may also lack the heating, plumbing and new technologies that make newer buildings more energy efficient.
1. Internally break up the plates then... problem solved.
2. Upgrade the heating/plumbing/electricity... problem solved

Is it really this hard to grasp people? When the kitchen in your house needs updating do you tear down the whole house and build a new one? So why exactly is it necessary to tear down these prewar buildings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 12:40 PM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
HA!

Untited, you are a man after my own heart. The phrase The greenest building is the one already built is somethign I intend to use on a regular basis and as often as I can.
__________________
"God damn modern architect's and their Brtualism, and 'realism' and damn concrete boxes. Why I remember back when buildings had STYLE back when you would have real ARTISTS working away both inside and out!
"Um, aren't you like barely 30?"
"Thats not the point you damn whipper snapper!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 10:26 PM
FMIII's Avatar
FMIII FMIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 184
Quote:
Is it really this hard to grasp people? When the kitchen in your house needs updating do you tear down the whole house and build a new one? So why exactly is it necessary to tear down these prewar buildings?
That is so true.

Above all, what makes NYC so beautiful and so unique is this mix of old and new skyscrapers. Something you won't find anywhere else except in Chicago. Promoters don't care about that. As I wrote before, if you let the market decide, then the entire city would be torn down for the wrong reasons and we would work for free. That's why there must be laws against that. Personally, I think they should have never removed the 1916 zoning law for it gave NYC its best skyscraper such as the Chrysler and the Empire state. I am not against change, Paris is a contrary example to NYC. My city has become an open air museum, and this is not something I rejoice.

Still, NYC has to learn how to preserve its past while building its future. This is what makes NY, New York and not Dubai.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 11:30 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
1. Internally break up the plates then... problem solved.
2. Upgrade the heating/plumbing/electricity... problem solved

Is it really this hard to grasp people? When the kitchen in your house needs updating do you tear down the whole house and build a new one? So why exactly is it necessary to tear down these prewar buildings?
That is such a positive attitude. I completely agree. Yes, many of the old buildings need work and modernising inside, but that is a much better option that totally knocking them down and building another glass box in it's place.

Whilst I do love and appreciate the beauty in many glass boxes, it is the old stone buildings in NYC that give it so much character and charm. It would be a terrible shame to lose these.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2012, 10:43 PM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
^ 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:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178173



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...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3125...ent-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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2012, 11:08 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy as pie View Post
i love that corner and i hope it never changes.

I would much rather see a gleaming 1500+ foot skyscraper on that corner than some old mid rise.

I don't understand people's obsession with these pre-war buildings, obviously the tallest ones like Chrysler ESB Woolworth etc. must never be touched, but people want to preserve a 12 story box when the cities (and one of the worlds) tallest building could potentially be built there?

Craziness I say, NYC has to move foward, into century veinte y uno
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 12:39 AM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I would much rather see a gleaming 1500+ foot skyscraper on that corner than some old mid rise.

I don't understand people's obsession with these pre-war buildings, obviously the tallest ones like Chrysler ESB Woolworth etc. must never be touched, but people want to preserve a 12 story box when the cities (and one of the worlds) tallest building could potentially be built there?

Craziness I say, NYC has to move foward, into century veinte y uno
Some prefer Hong Kong and some prefer Paris.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 1:25 AM
Arawooho's Avatar
Arawooho Arawooho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I would much rather see a gleaming 1500+ foot skyscraper on that corner than some old mid rise.

I don't understand people's obsession with these pre-war buildings, obviously the tallest ones like Chrysler ESB Woolworth etc. must never be touched, but people want to preserve a 12 story box when the cities (and one of the worlds) tallest building could potentially be built there?

Craziness I say, NYC has to move foward
Thank you. I can't stand people who would want to preserve a rotting building. Newer is better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 1:34 AM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arawooho View Post
Thank you. I can't stand people who would want to preserve a rotting building. Newer is better.
Then move to LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 1:52 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyhigh07 View Post
Some prefer Hong Kong and some prefer Paris.
in NYC you can have both

NY has the skyscrapers of Asia and the cosmopolitan class of Europe. Win win situation I say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 2:03 AM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
in NYC you can have both

NY has the skyscrapers of Asia and the cosmopolitan class of Europe. Win win situation I say.
Architecture is what defines Europe's cosmolitan class. Do you honestly think Paris would be Paris if it didn't have it's wealth of classical buildings?

Most people are just naturally drawn and attracted to classical architecture. Why do you think most tourists gravitate toward the older parts of Paris rather than La Defense? It is simply a matter of aesthetic preference.

Last edited by skyhigh07; Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 2:31 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California/Argentina
Posts: 1,832
Paris is a much older city than NY and has a lot of that... although NYC has a very good share of old buildings.

I'm not at all saying old buildings aren't important but an old 12 story box, unless there's something very special about it has no importance to NYC's skyline or streets and won't be drawing anyone.

Buildings like Woolworth, Grand Central, Chrysler, ESB etc. are major asthetic attractions, there's nothing wrong with mixing old attractive buildings with new gleaming supertalls.

It looks like there is a chance to see the cities new tallest at this site, and that would be amazing if it happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 2:48 AM
reencharles's Avatar
reencharles reencharles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I would much rather see a gleaming 1500+ foot skyscraper on that corner than some old mid rise.

I don't understand people's obsession with these pre-war buildings, obviously the tallest ones like Chrysler ESB Woolworth etc. must never be touched, but people want to preserve a 12 story box when the cities (and one of the worlds) tallest building could potentially be built there?

Craziness I say, NYC has to move foward, into century veinte y uno
Excellent. I totally agree with you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 2:56 AM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Paris is a much older city than NY and has a lot of that... although NYC has a very good share of old buildings.

I'm not at all saying old buildings aren't important but an old 12 story box, unless there's something very special about it has no importance to NYC's skyline or streets and won't be drawing anyone.

Buildings like Woolworth, Grand Central, Chrysler, ESB etc. are major asthetic attractions, there's nothing wrong with mixing old attractive buildings with new gleaming supertalls.

It looks like there is a chance to see the cities new tallest at this site, and that would be amazing if it happened.
Remember there's more to a building than just it's height. If all you care about is mixing old attractive buildings with new gleaming supertalls then pretty soon there won't be any old buildings left. Don't get me wrong, gleaming supertalls can be beautiful, however they rarely define the historic and architectural fabric of a city. So what Im saying is, a new glass skyscraper on this site would distort the historical and contextual environment of Grand Central.I can think of many other places where the city's new tallest building could be built (Hudson Yards for example.)

Perhaps, one needs to have lived in New York to understand this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 3:24 AM
Jelly Roll Jelly Roll is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NJ/NYC
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyhigh07 View Post
Remember there's more to a building than just it's height. If all you care about is mixing old attractive buildings with new gleaming supertalls then pretty soon there won't be any old buildings left. Don't get me wrong, gleaming supertalls can be beautiful, however they rarely define the historic and architectural fabric of a city. So what Im saying is, a new glass skyscraper on this site would distort the historical and contextual environment of Grand Central.I can think of many other places where the city's new tallest building could be built (Hudson Yards for example.)

Perhaps, one needs to have lived in New York to understand this.
People have different opinions on this but I disagree with you and have no problem seeing those buildings torn down for an iconic new building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 3:31 AM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelly Roll View Post
People have different opinions on this but I disagree with you and have no problem seeing those buildings torn down for an iconic new building.
It's sad that more Americans don't value their history and architectural heritage, but if that's what you believe... Fine. Then, perhaps we need to stop saying that London, Rome, Paris etc are the most beautiful cities in the world. Can't have your cake and eat it too...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.