New York's Aging Buildings

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

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...

Eh, I personally believe you are reaching comparing those buildings to the buildings in London, Rome and Paris but if you honestly believe that style is so great West Philadelphia has a ton of it if you want to see it in the US.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

Eh, I personally believe you are reaching comparing those buildings to the buildings in London, Rome and Paris but if you honestly believe that style is so great West Philadelphia has a ton of it if you want to see it in the US.

Again, its all about context. Not all historic buildings in London or Paris are ostentatiously attractive; however, their preservation adds to their cities' historical and architectural fabrics. In any case, these buildings compliment the grandeur and historical aesthetic of Grand Central much better than any glass skyscraper could.

West Phillly?...Perhaps, South Broad and the area around Rittenhouse, but I never thought West Philly to be particularly grand.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Again, its all about context. Not all historic buildings in London or Paris are ostentatiously attractive; however, their preservation adds to their cities' historical and architectural fabrics. In any case, these buildings compliment the grandeur and historical aesthetic of Grand Central much better than any glass skyscraper could.

West Phillly?...Perhaps, South Broad and the area around Rittenhouse, but I never thought West Philly to be particularly grand.

University City in West Philadelphia has multiple apartment buildings on Market St that are the exact same style and size as those buildings...

[Crawford]

I respect others arguments, but I honestly don't understand them. There are thousands of older buildings of this type in NYC.

Even if a few hundred of them were eliminated, no city on earth would have even a fraction of NYC's older office building stock.

And we're not talking about eliminating hundreds. We're talking about eliminating a few in the vicinity of Grand Central, which desperately needs new office space.

Personally, I would prefer a landmark, world-class office tower over yet another of the thousands of anonymous prewar commercial buildings.

NYC needs a diversity of building types, and there are currently far, far more prewar office buildings than new office buildings.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

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.

I never said height was everything, note that I previously said Grand Central was one of NYC's main attractions.

Of course there will be buildings left! NYC has thousands of old buildings, do you really want to stay frozen in time forever? Again, NYC will never grow if you think old decaying 12 story boxes that aren't worth preserving should not be replaced with massive new towers, I really can't understand the logic.

NY doesn't have old landmarks like European cities do, the US is a much younger country. However, there are still plenty of old historic buildings that will be preserved in NYC, the most important ones I already mentioned. We need more variety of old and new.

[Arawooho]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I never said height was everything, note that I previously said Grand Central was one of NYC's main attractions.

Of course there will be buildings left! NYC has thousands of old buildings, do you really want to stay frozen in time forever? Again, NYC will never grow if you think old decaying 12 story boxes that aren't worth preserving should not be replaced with massive new towers, I really can't understand the logic.

NY doesn't have old landmarks like European cities do, the US is a much younger country. However, there are still plenty of old historic buildings that will be preserved in NYC, the most important ones I already mentioned. We need more variety of old and new.

I completely agree with you. I wouldn't like to be stuck in the 60's, especially in NY, where things always need to adapt to newer and modern times.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

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

There are other areas in NY to build very tall buildings. I am skeptical of rezoning the area to allow taller buildings. I doubt all of these building will be of high architectural quality. I also think quite a few will be big fat boring boxes given the cost of building and the desire for developers to make a profit. I am kind of amazed that no one is expressing a concern about all of these potentially new taller buildings blocking out the Chrysler building. Just what NY needs, Chrysler surrounded on all sides by 1000 foot tall boxes.

[Hudson11]

the Chrysler building is already surrounded by boxes, so i don't see your point. We shouldn't built taller because it's a landmark and it would be overshadowed? It's a relic (albeit a beautiful one). We need to move forward.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I respect others arguments, but I honestly don't understand them. There are thousands of older buildings of this type in NYC.

Even if a few hundred of them were eliminated, no city on earth would have even a fraction of NYC's older office building stock.

And we're not talking about eliminating hundreds. We're talking about eliminating a few in the vicinity of Grand Central, which desperately needs new office space.

Personally, I would prefer a landmark, world-class office tower over yet another of the thousands of anonymous prewar commercial buildings.

NYC needs a diversity of building types, and there are currently far, far more prewar office buildings than new office buildings.

Perhaps, one needs to have a long term perspective of things. I've said this before, even if 20 buildings are demolished in Manhattan each year, in a hundreds years time that number turns into 2,000.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I never said height was everything, note that I previously said Grand Central was one of NYC's main attractions.

Of course there will be buildings left! NYC has thousands of old buildings, do you really want to stay frozen in time forever? Again, NYC will never grow if you think old decaying 12 story boxes that aren't worth preserving should not be replaced with massive new towers, I really can't understand the logic.

NY doesn't have old landmarks like European cities do, the US is a much younger country. However, there are still plenty of old historic buildings that will be preserved in NYC, the most important ones I already mentioned. We need more variety of old and new.

That's certainly debatable. Apart from a few extremes, most buildings in London and Paris were built during the mid 19th century. (See Haussman for Paris).

What Im trying to say that without certain preservation protections, ALL old buildings will yield to modern buildings at some point. Change and newnesses will ultimately diminish what once was.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

University City in West Philadelphia has multiple apartment buildings on Market St that are the exact same style and size as those buildings...

You're really bringing up Market St? Come on! Market St in University is essentially an unattrive hodgepodge of some early twentieth century apartments, brutalitist academic buildings, and parking lots.

If you had initially referenced some buildings in Center City, I might be able to see your point. However, I'm not really sure the area around Market St in West Philly is a paradigm of historical prervation.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I respect others arguments, but I honestly don't understand them. There are thousands of older buildings of this type in NYC.

Even if a few hundred of them were eliminated, no city on earth would have even a fraction of NYC's older office building stock.

And we're not talking about eliminating hundreds. We're talking about eliminating a few in the vicinity of Grand Central, which desperately needs new office space.

Personally, I would prefer a landmark, world-class office tower over yet another of the thousands of anonymous prewar commercial buildings.

NYC needs a diversity of building types, and there are currently far, far more prewar office buildings than new office buildings.

Whatever the case, the commercial real estate market in Manhattan is most likely to become over saturated within the next decade or so. Hudson Yards is still in it's infancy and the World Trade Center hasn't even come online yet.

Why is it so impossible to honor the history, dignity and classicism of Grand Central by preserving a few old buildings, which surround it? As I mentioned, there will always be places where modern architecture can be built, however, that isn't necessarily true in regards to historic preservation.

[Stained]

The key in all things is balance. No one is supporting the destruction of all of NYC's old buildings. I do not understand how people can make the argument that NYC will never be as beautiful as London or Paris if it builds new office buildings where an old structure or two existed. NYC is not those cities. It is the city where every block and neighborhood is a mix of the short and tall, old and new, and all things in between. I am very excited for this development and for all future ones in this area of the city.

[JayPro]

@SkyHigh
If as you suggest the commercial real estate market here is headed toward the fate you predict (sources, please?), why has so much planning and approval gone into West Side redevelopment? Surely the developers and architects have undertaken exhaustive long-term feasibility studies and have set their expectations accordingly.
Of course in this global economy a hiccup in one part of the world might give cause on our end to be more than little bit edgy. But if our response every time Wall $treet drops its proverbial hat is to either do nothing or--in your case--go on a building frenzy while the assumed market conditions are perceived as healthy when in fact they might not be--I can see where the oversaturation you cite can--and most likely *does* happen (IIRC re: Miami's residential building boom).
I'm no student of economics--and I hope that what I just tried to explain is accurate--but if the #1 rule of a healthy market is a balanced dynamic of supply & demand, and you have sensible developers proffering sensible plans to make your city a better place to live and do business in, why can't one be at least cautiously optimistic?
I apologize to the Mod Squad if this post wanders too far afield of the thread topic; but as long as we don't actually see a proposal and rendering to discuss, the environment around which this structure is anticipated to rise is fair game IMO.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Whatever the case, the commercial real estate market in Manhattan is most likely to become over saturated within the next decade or so. Hudson Yards is still in it's infancy and the World Trade Center hasn't even come online yet.

Manhattan currently has, by far, the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the U.S. There's a desperate need for new office space.

And on what basis do you have the power to forsee the real estate market 10 years from now?

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Why is it so impossible to honor the history, dignity and classicism of Grand Central by preserving a few old buildings, which surround it?

We're already doing this. There are landmarked buildings all over the place in this neighborhood, including three major landmarked buildings across the street from this site.

We just aren't preserving every single old building.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Manhattan currently has, by far, the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the U.S. There's a desperate need for new office space.

And on what basis do you have the power to forsee the real estate market 10 years from now?

We're already doing this. There are landmarked buildings all over the place in this neighborhood, including three major landmarked buildings across the street from this site.

We just aren't preserving every single old building.

"The new zoning might not go into effect until five years from now. The Bloomberg administration is considering such a delay because it doesn't want to create competition for the city's ambitious Hudson Yards project on the Far West Side, where developers are still seeking anchor tenants to help get large office towers off the ground."

"Mary Ann Tighe, a chairwoman at the brokerage firm CBRE and chairwoman of REBNY, said she hoped new zoning would double current height limits, and provide a tax incentive for developers. But even with modifications to height restrictions — they are unlikely to be doubled — it would take years before buildings could be emptied of tenants and rebuilt. “It isn’t like all of a sudden all these landlords will tear down their buildings and the neighborhood will be a huge construction zone,” Mr. Spinola said. “This is a long-term process that will take form over the next 10, 20, even 30 years.”

Still, if the plan goes ahead, it would mark the third modern office district the city is fostering at the same time. The city already has directed billions of dollars of investment in building up two other parts of Manhattan—the area around the World Trade Center site and the far West Side of Manhattan—which could potentially compete for the same tenants."

"Real-estate executives respond by saying that a rezoned Midtown would likely develop gradually, and wouldn't be a significant competitor to those other districts."

"...Including in Hudson Yards, and even exceed that height at the slowly redeveloping World Trade Center. And this was perhaps the greatest concern for community board members. “The public is spending billions of dollars at Hudson Yards and ground zero, and for good reason,” said Raju Mann, a member of Community Board 5. “We haven’t even seen what these projects have produced yet, so how can we be sure what’s appropriate for Midtown East?”

He also argued that the whole rationale for investing in these areas was because the administration had argued that Midtown was outmoded. Now to reinvest in that neighborhood, worthy as it is, could undercut the others before they have a chance to take root. The department counters that because Midtown is indeed built up, it will not develop over night and be a direct competitor to these areas, but instead this is a rezoning that will play out over two or three decades. Ms. Hsu-Chen made special note of a marked lack of office development in Midtown in the past decade to drive home the point that current zoning does not work."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/ny...pagewanted=all

http://observer.com/2012/06/is-midto...taller-towers/



No one seems to understand that there is't an unlimited amount of prewar buildings in manhattan. As I've said before even if you demolished 20 old buildings a year in Manhattan that number would turn into 2,000 in a hundred years time... Roughly the size of the entire upper west side, if not larger..

And what three landmarked buildings are located across the street from the site? I hope you're not counting Grand Central.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Stained

The key in all things is balance. No one is supporting the destruction of all of NYC's old buildings. I do not understand how people can make the argument that NYC will never be as beautiful as London or Paris if it builds new office buildings where an old structure or two existed. NYC is not those cities. It is the city where every block and neighborhood is a mix of the short and tall, old and new, and all things in between. I am very excited for this development and for all future ones in this area of the city.

By implementing your argument, historical preservation ultimately loses in the long run. I hate to sound like a broken record, but a handful of demolished old buildings a year eventually turns into thousands in a hundred years time.

If you prefer Hong Kong to Paris, thats fine. if you only love New York for what it might be, instead of what it is, then you do not truly appreciate the "Gotham" that people come here to see, and the reason why we live here. And from what I gather, I'm beginning to think that most people on this thread would rather see it turn into another generic glass and steel Asian skyscraper-megalopolis.

New York is truly a magnificent piece of sculpture; however, the greatest artist knows when to stop and admire the beauty of his work. Otherwise he is left with a pile of dust.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

No one seems to understand that there is't an unlimited amount of prewar buildings in manhattan. As I've said before even if you demolished 20 old buildings a year in Manhattan that number would turn into 2,000 in a hundred years time... Roughly the size of the entire upper west side, if not larger..

20 major older manhattan buildings aren't demolished on an annualized basis, so this is silly.

But, even if it were true, as you mention, it would take centuries to have an impact. We'll all be long gone, and there will be countless architectural trends and building booms, and the idea of preserving basically 20 years of NYC's development (1910-1930) to the detriment of the rest of history will likely be seen as very odd.

[photoLith]

I hate seeing old buildings demolished but remember the landmarks commission in NYC is doing a very good job at ensuring that large amounts of the city aren't turned into glass.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Crawford

20 major older manhattan buildings aren't demolished on an annualized basis, so this is silly.

But, even if it were true, as you mention, it would take centuries to have an impact. We'll all be long gone, and there will be countless architectural trends and building booms, and the idea of preserving basically 20 years of NYC's development (1910-1930) to the detriment of the rest of history will likely be seen as very odd.

Yes, and I'm sure you're an expert and an avid researcher on New York historical preservation. Counting the number of row houses and brownstones that are demolished every year, that number is probably well above 20. Surely, there must be some compromise?

Evidently, you have no concern for preserving New York's architectural history for future generations. There are countless other places in Manhattan where new mega skyscrapers can rise... Hudson Yards for example.

Sadly, it seems that no one has really learned from the demolition of the old Penn Station. Seems very odd...