HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    One Vanderbilt in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 4:35 PM
Eidolon's Avatar
Eidolon Eidolon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Looking at the overall proposal of this project I really hope they don't tear down these buildings. The midtown district is not going to die because we preserve buildings, that is a ridiculous claim. I love new skyscrapers but a city full of glass buildings is not beautiful and we need groups of buildings like these to keep new york city a beautiful city. The reason why so many cities cores around the country have died is because of these historic buildings being teared down and everything turns into big glass skyscrapers. Walking around New York city there PLENTY of ugly post war buildings that could be replaced for these types of skyscrapers. We don't need to tear apart are historic ones to make room for these.
The facades of the buildings could be preserved and integrated into the new towers too. I think that in most cases these kinds of solutions could satisfy both preservationists and pro-development people such as myself, but I won't shed a tear if some old stuff that isn't unique or rare gets torn down, pre-wars still comprise an overwhelming majority of the stock in New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 4:38 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Looking at the overall proposal of this project I really hope they don't tear down these buildings. The midtown district is not going to die because we preserve buildings, that is a ridiculous claim.
If we preserve 100% of old buildings, then, yes, you will create a museum city like Venice.

The fact is that the vast majority of Manhattan is prewar architecture, and most of these older buildings aren't going anywhere.

What's wrong with having a few new buildings in the city? Why do we have to preserve everything old, when we want a dynamic, growing city? If we had this mentality decades ago, the Empire State Building would have never been built. It replaced the very attractive original Waldorf Astoria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Walking around New York city there PLENTY of ugly post war buildings that could be replaced for these types of skyscrapers.
And some postwar buildings will be replaced, but not all. Some postwar buildings are landmarked too, many are more valuable than the prewars (because of better floorplates and ceiling heights), and many are already built to maximum zoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
We don't need to tear apart are historic ones to make room for these.
Again, the vast majority of Manhattan is prewar, so if your rule is "no destruction of any prewars" you will basically get a museum city with little to no development. Manhattan has very few parking lots (and there are essentially none in Midtown), and prewars outnumber postwars by probably 5-to-1.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 5:17 PM
JG573 JG573 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
If we preserve 100% of old buildings, then, yes, you will create a museum city like Venice.

The fact is that the vast majority of Manhattan is prewar architecture, and most of these older buildings aren't going anywhere.

What's wrong with having a few new buildings in the city? Why do we have to preserve everything old, when we want a dynamic, growing city? If we had this mentality decades ago, the Empire State Building would have never been built. It replaced the very attractive original Waldorf Astoria.


And some postwar buildings will be replaced, but not all. Some postwar buildings are landmarked too, many are more valuable than the prewars (because of better floorplates and ceiling heights), and many are already built to maximum zoning.

Again, the vast majority of Manhattan is prewar, so if your rule is "no destruction of any prewars" you will basically get a museum city with little to no development. Manhattan has very few parking lots (and there are essentially none in Midtown), and prewars outnumber postwars by probably 5-to-1.
Just because prewar outnumber postwar doesn't give it the okay to tear them down. We have have a lot of new buildings going up their is nothing wrong with that but these new buildings can be built in places where they don't have to tear down historic buildings that add to the character of the city. All glass new buildings makes for a dull dead street front if the whole city was that. Just because old buildings in the past where torn down doesn't make it alright to do it as I will say again. You don't need all new buildings for a city to grow. There is nothing wrong with a museum city as you like to call it because you can still have a extremely nice business districts and commercial districts like london but preserve most of your old buildings. Its the problem is where is it stop? Oh this one is okay because it is a nice new tall building then the same argument will be brought up over and over again until we finally see the loss of historic buildings and the effects on the city.

I am not anti-new development but i realize that our old buildings should be preserved and redone to give the city a sense of character. While places where historic buildings aren't which there are plenty can be made room for new development. If you want a all new district with all new developments there are huge amounts of land in manhattan with projects on them that don't add any character that can be bought and utilized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 5:24 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
We have have a lot of new buildings going up their is nothing wrong with that but these new buildings can be built in places where they don't have to tear down historic buildings that add to the character of the city.
What you're proposing has no relevance to Midtown, or really Manhattan as a whole.

There are almost no parking lots, and 80%-90% of the buildings are old, so you can't get new buildings without replacing old buildings.

Again, if your stance is "preserve all prewars" then you're advocating for a museum city. There will be virtually no development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 5:32 PM
JG573 JG573 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
What you're proposing has no relevance to Midtown, or really Manhattan as a whole.

There are almost no parking lots, and 80%-90% of the buildings are old, so you can't get new buildings without replacing old buildings.

Again, if your stance is "preserve all prewars" then you're advocating for a museum city. There will be virtually no development.
This has a lot or relevance to manhattan as like I said there are many large areas of land with projects on them that can be used for new development and there are buildings all over the city that are post war that are so bland and terrible looking that can be torn down and used. Eventually you can't have new development in areas because its built out without taking away from the character of midtown. There are plenty of areas throughout manhattan for these new developments I have mentioned above.

Again, if your stance is all new development then you're advocating for a dead city not a museum city which there is nothing wrong with. A dead city with all new developments? Hmmm sounds familiar look around the country where has that got cities in the us?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 5:47 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
This has a lot or relevance to manhattan as like I said there are many large areas of land with projects on them that can be used for new development and there are buildings all over the city that are post war that are so bland and terrible looking that can be torn down and used.
Could you name these "large areas of land" lacking prewars where you are proposing new development in Midtown? I can't think of even one area without prewars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Again, if your stance is all new development then you're advocating for a dead city not a museum city which there is nothing wrong with.
No one is advocating for "all new development". Most of Manhattan is already landmarked or downzoned, so you can't tear down older buildings in the vast majority of the borough.

What is wrong with 5%-10% of the buildings demolished for new construction? Even then, NYC will be a very old city, that, for U.S. standards, will be extremely historic compared to the other major cities. It will still be much closer to a Rome than a Dubai.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
A dead city with all new developments? Hmmm sounds familiar look around the country where has that got cities in the us?
I don't know what you're referring to, but I can't think of any major city in the U.S. that has as many preservation laws and regulations that prevent destruction of older buildings.

No one here wants Manhattan to look like Dallas. But we also don't want Manhattan to look like Venice. We want a diverse city, with architectural styles from all eras, rather than a museum city, with only buildings from the prewar era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 6:12 PM
JG573 JG573 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Could you name these "large areas of land" lacking prewars where you are proposing new development in Midtown? I can't think of even one area without prewars.


No one is advocating for "all new development". Most of Manhattan is already landmarked or downzoned, so you can't tear down older buildings in the vast majority of the borough.

What is wrong with 5%-10% of the buildings demolished for new construction? Even then, NYC will be a very old city, that, for U.S. standards, will be extremely historic compared to the other major cities. It will still be much closer to a Rome than a Dubai.


I don't know what you're referring to, but I can't think of any major city in the U.S. that has as many preservation laws and regulations that prevent destruction of older buildings.

No one here wants Manhattan to look like Dallas. But we also don't want Manhattan to look like Venice. We want a diverse city, with architectural styles from all eras, rather than a museum city, with only buildings from the prewar era.
There is a lot wrong with tearing down 5%-10% of historic buildings when they can preserved and keep the strong character of the city. Those areas aren't in midtown I was talking about the ones in manhattan like stuy town and other projects that would be far more pleasing to tear down and put new developments that mold together a street fabric. The areas in midtown that you can tear down buildings are like the god awful ones in the pictures that where posted before that where post war ugly ones.

I know NYC has the tightest preservation standards but i don't want to see them go away or start getting relaxed for a big glass building like this, just because you want to see another new tall building when it can be built in areas of Manhattan that you don't need to tear down historic buildings like those to put up.

This museum city remark is absolutely ridiculous. We should preserve districts that have old buildings like midtown and allow new developments on lands that can be used like all those projects and places like the hudson yards. Which, cities do all around the world like london and paris while still preserving the historic buildings. That is making new york city a diverse city without tearing down buildings that have character and are historic. Imagine if stuy town was used for new development. I mean we would be able to have plenty of room for new developments while still keeping all these historic buildings that are being torn down around the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 7:49 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
There is a lot wrong with tearing down 5%-10% of historic buildings when they can preserved and keep the strong character of the city.
I disagree. I don't want Midtown to be a museum.

Losing 5% of old buildings doesn't seem very unreasonable, when the alternative you're proposing is economic decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Those areas aren't in midtown I was talking about the ones in manhattan like stuy town and other projects that would be far more pleasing to tear down and put new developments that mold together a street fabric.
Not to be rude, but you don't seem to be from around here.

Stuy Town isn't in Midtown and is nowhere near any subways or transit terminals. It would never become high-density commercial. Workers couldn't even get there.

And Stuy Town may soon be landmarked. It's considered one of the best examples of international style housing design.

It's irrelevent anyways, because the complex is occupied by thousands of rent stabilized residents, and it would take many lifetimes to clear everyone out of there legally. Oh, and the zoning would never allow what you're proposing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
This museum city remark is absolutely ridiculous. We should preserve districts that have old buildings like midtown and allow new developments on lands that can be used like all those projects and places like the hudson yards. Which, cities do all around the world like london and paris while still preserving the historic buildings.
This is exactly what I'm supporting and you're opposing. I said I want a mix of buildings from all eras, like in London and Paris. You're saying you want no new buildings in Midtown, and we have to save all prewars, when places like London and Paris (and, thankfully, New York) are constantly building new buildings.

Grand Central isn't moving anytime soon. You have to concentrate density near transit terminals, not in Stuyvesant Town or wherever.

At the same time, Grand Central is surrounded by 90% prewars. This means, if any buildings are built, some prewars will have to go. The alternative is a museum city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2012, 9:43 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Looking at the overall proposal of this project I really hope they don't tear down these buildings. The midtown district is not going to die because we preserve buildings, that is a ridiculous claim.
Only ridiculous if you don't know what you're talking about, which your comments suggests. But this thread has gone too far in the wrong direction already.

The appropriate threads are here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178173

And here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197082



Now, if you want to continue with the silly reasons why the towers on this particular block, next to a busy transit center, in the heart of the city's core commercial district shouldn't be demolished for modern office space, then you are beyond reasoning with.

The City is not in a bubble, preserved for all time. The ridiculous argument that the "character" must be preserved shows a lack of understanding of what is being planned, or in fact what truly makes up that character to begin with.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2012, 12:38 AM
JG573 JG573 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I disagree. I don't want Midtown to be a museum.

Losing 5% of old buildings doesn't seem very unreasonable, when the alternative you're proposing is economic decline.


Not to be rude, but you don't seem to be from around here.

Stuy Town isn't in Midtown and is nowhere near any subways or transit terminals. It would never become high-density commercial. Workers couldn't even get there.

And Stuy Town may soon be landmarked. It's considered one of the best examples of international style housing design.

It's irrelevent anyways, because the complex is occupied by thousands of rent stabilized residents, and it would take many lifetimes to clear everyone out of there legally. Oh, and the zoning would never allow what you're proposing.


This is exactly what I'm supporting and you're opposing. I said I want a mix of buildings from all eras, like in London and Paris. You're saying you want no new buildings in Midtown, and we have to save all prewars, when places like London and Paris (and, thankfully, New York) are constantly building new buildings.

Grand Central isn't moving anytime soon. You have to concentrate density near transit terminals, not in Stuyvesant Town or wherever.

At the same time, Grand Central is surrounded by 90% prewars. This means, if any buildings are built, some prewars will have to go. The alternative is a museum city.
Not from around here hmmm what about you. If i am correct there is a E 14th st subway line that borders stuy town, not to mention and i know its not in midtown i am talking in general overall in manhattan there is room to expand commercial and business districts.Not to mention more transit can be expanded.

Not no new buildings in midtown but don't tear down historic ones take down ones like the hyatt and put more visual pleasing buildings in. Replace some of the younger ones that are ugly looking not the historic ones.

London and Paris having done similar things like i am proposing. Clear land like stuy town and other various projects and make a new district instead of just keeping on tearing down historic buildings. London canary wharf and paris La defense. Which they did what i am proposing not what you are. They preserved the historic buildings in nature and clear and rezoned land like they did to build these towers without destroying there historic buildings. Get what i am saying now, hope that is much clearer. There are other areas in manhattan like one we are doing right now with the hudson yards. It is what paris and london did instead of tearing into there historic fabric. If these are still built in manhattan it won't cause economic decline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2012, 1:22 AM
NewYorkDominates's Avatar
NewYorkDominates NewYorkDominates is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 864
^ NYguy was generous enough to provide you a link for your discussions;I think it's time to move it.
__________________
"I went too a restaurant that served breakfast at anytime, so i ordered french toast during the renaissance."-Who else?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2012, 8:54 PM
Inkoumori Inkoumori is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 360
^^Last I checked Canary Wharf was just that before redev- a decrepit industrial and warehouse area. "La Défense" or Puteaux was also a decrepit district of factories, farms and shanty towns. Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village is a well maintained middle class neighborhood with around 30,000 inhabitants- something you just don't "tear down".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 4:18 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG573 View Post
Clear land like stuy town and other various projects and make a new district instead of just keeping on tearing down historic buildings. There are other areas in manhattan like one we are doing right now with the hudson yards.
Again, clearly a lack of understanding, of both this development and Manhattan. I'll leave it at that, and you can continue the preservation push in the other threads.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 10:59 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TXpatriate
Posts: 2,158
I don't have too much to say since both Crawford and NYGuy gave well-thought and well-argued comments pro- the redevelopment of this block and the rezoning of this area of Midtown. Yes, New York is still predominantly an older city, and that is all the more reason zoning changes like this should be urged forward. I read somewhere not too long ago that every year an increasing amount of Manhattan's building stock is approaching the 50-years-of-age-or-more mark. To try to preserve all of that is just going to permit New York, a global center of most major industries, to fall behind. In an era when the developing world is striding ahead, this is unacceptable.

I wouldn't want this city to become Rome anyway, because that city is nearly as frozen in time as Venice. A historic world center, yes, but not so much a modern one...not to mention the fragile state of the Italian economy and its effects on the Eurozone. Athens is another museum city, and look at Greece. Not to say that under-developed major cities are a main cause of their countries' imminent declines, but New York's contributions to economic prosperity has not yet stopped driving America and the world forward (save a few hiccups), nor should it.

Furthermore, as far as preservation losses, I'm pretty sure we hit our nadir with Penn Station in 1963. If we can learn from that and spend the nearly 50 years since preserving our asses off...and still find more reasons for this upzoning than against it, it can't be that poorly thought out. And, not for nothing, but if the LPC is that concerned, just let them calendar all those buildings for designation. I guarantee that, when push comes to shove, some buildings might not even be deemed worthy of saving by them.

Finally, I walk past this building often and it's particularly oppressive at street level, considering the amount of foot traffic in that area. That part of 42nd Street is dominated by 20- and 30-something-story pre-war towers that create a severe and darkened streetscape. I might prefer a retake.

And I like the Hyatt those tchotchke, postmodern constructions from the 70s-90s are the New York I knew as a child. I'd lie down in front of the bulldozer that'd try to rip that shit down.

Hm, guess I did have a lot to say.
__________________
BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:20 AM
Inkoumori Inkoumori is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 360
^The Hyatt is an old building stripped and redressed by Trump in the 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Hyatt_New_York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:21 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TXpatriate
Posts: 2,158
I'm alright with that
__________________
BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:30 AM
Inkoumori Inkoumori is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 360
me too- I like what you wrote just adding....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 1:56 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 40,786
Let's get back to the building at hand. Very few details, but at least its in motion...


http://www.designntrend.com/articles...ng-midtown.htm

Giant Office Building In Midtown




Nov 27, 2012

Quote:
The architecture firm Kohn Pederson Fox Associates was selected by SL Green Realty Corp. to design a giant office building next to Grand Central Terminal, according to various executives informed of the planning. When completed, the building-on the west block of Grand Central between 42nd and 43rd streets- would join the group of largest Midtown towers on the East Side. SL Green is planning the project with full of hope despite the challenging fact of building in New York. Indeed, the company is discussing with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to gain the rights to build underground connectors to Grand Central as part of pedestrian improvements.

SL Green came up with the plan as the Bloomberg administration is trying to carry on the rezoning plan of the area around Grand Central, which could give the company the right to construct a 1.4 million-square feet tower. However, Marc Holliday, SL Green's chief executive, in a conference call in July said that the company couldn't anticipate the effect of the zoning plan on the development project. "Certainly we'll have the result of the zoning amendment before we take any material step forward" on the building plan, said Mr.Holliday.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 2:09 AM
NYC GUY's Avatar
NYC GUY NYC GUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 575
Good to know it's in motion so how tall could this be? with the new zoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 8:31 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC GUY View Post
Good to know it's in motion so how tall could this be? with the new zoning.
There will be no height limits. It's all a matter of design. This tower in particular will be a trophy tower, not as practical as a typical office tower would be. Expect something a little flashy.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:45 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.