Is New York done with skyscrapers?

[MRoberts]

I don't mean to upset anyone, but as an afficionado of skyscrapers for years, I've noted that since the 1980's New York City seems to have fallen behind other cities in the arena of skyscrapers. http://ultrapolisproject.com/ultrapolis_017.htm shows New York City is now down to 4th place in terms of tallest cities, and says that Hong Kong, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpu, Dubai and many other cities are building dazzling new ultramodern superskyscrapers and space age towers, while New York has not done anything really big since the 1930's except the WTC themselves (and, of course, now the Freedom Tower - which will be eclipsed before it is even finshed by the new tower in Dubai).
I was wondering what New Yorkers interested in architecure think about all this? Even the Freedom Tower itself seems to be opposed by some New Yorkers (although so was the Empire State Building when it was being built - it was derisively called the 'Empty State Building' by many for years). Is it that New Yorkers just don't see themselves as trendsetters in this area anymore? Or is it that New Yorkers don't even realize how other cities are overtaking them? It just seems like this was such a defining aspect of the city for so long, seems strange to see it simply stop in this respect.
I am not a New Yorker, though I've been many times, and have loved every visit.

[hella good]

new york will never be 'done' with skyscrapers. buildings over 100 feet are hard to get into the pipeline in such a historic city, planning reasons, money reasons, nimby's reasons all restrict the size of buildings. The city will have a comeback i can tell you that right now. Weve got NYT tower, BOA, con ed, and the ghery tower to come, which will be large, not to mention the towers at ground zero.

[Fabrizio]

"Is it that New Yorkers just don't see themselves as trendsetters in this area anymore? Or is it that New Yorkers don't even realize how other cities are overtaking them? It just seems like this was such a defining aspect of the city for so long, seems strange to see it simply stop in this respect".

NYC went 40 long long years without building a skyscraper to rival the Chrysler or the ESB.... during those 40 years, NYC did very well. Is having "the tallest" really so important? In 1930, building that tall was a spectacular feat; it truly signified something.... but isn't the world today about other technologies and frontiers?

[BrooklynRider]

Bloomberg, NY Times Tower, BoA, Freedom Tower, Beekman Place, 80 South Street.

[ablarc]

Bloomberg, NY Times Tower, BoA, Freedom Tower, Beekman Place, 80 South Street.
BrooklynRider, you can't answer this one with a list of achievements if you accept the premise in the question that New York's performance now falls short of other places'. hellagood also lists New York's 'scrapers in the pipeline, but MRoberts has already stated in his question that these aren't enough for New York to keep first place, by ultrapolisproject's criteria at least.

So, more interesting than defensiveness or an SSP-style pissing contest would be a thoughtful answer to the question. Fabrizio attempts that, but it's unconvincing; he refers to "other technologies and frontiers", but those are computers and biotech, and New York isn't a leader in those either.

hellagood nails it, I think: it's NIMBYs and their bizarre theories about the evils of tallness. Zoning laws and government review processes lend far too much weight to the views of these nay-sayers.

Another reason might be the natural curve that leads from youthful brashness (Dubai, etc.) to sober maturity (NY, which has been doing the world's tallest buildings for a century); but that makes New York seem like a geriatric case.

I'd rather see New York regain the lead than have us claim we never lost it in the first place. We're talking strictly about skylines here, and there's no doubt that Hong Kong's has a bigger wow factor.

With a few 2000-footers, New York would break through the flat-top skyline we seem increasingly stuck with; that would give us a fresh dose of self-esteem not based on defensive pointing to past glories or relatively modest present achievements.

[Ninjahedge]

Who cares?

And really, do these people rate a city on the height of their buildings? I hate to say it, but a lot of the cities that are "beating" us are doing so because they have the land to DO it.

I have seen alot of other "big" cities in the world, but NYC is undoubtedly one of the denest conglomerations of tall buildings over the largest area I have ever seen.

And pardon people for being NIMBYs if what is being planned on their back yard is not a bird feeder but a monolithic glass and steel structure that will block all but a small bit of what was previously their own corner of the world.


NIMBY is not always a bad word you know.


PS, the true route of NIMBY is from the people that push for something, but do not want it in THEIR back yard.

So, Alb. Where do you live? Would you want a skyscraper in your back or front yard? Do you have a view? Do you live in a brownstone? WOuld you want a skyscraper in what was previously your small close-knit neighborhood?

[hella good]

to be honest i dont care if other cities are 'overtaking' new york, its a great city and its skyline has developed over a hundred years. that is some development and some feat, it has always set the trends and these cities that are being built over five years have no culture or history. the city is just maturing thats all.

[Fabrizio]

Ablarc:

"Another reason might be the natural curve that leads from youthful brashness (Dubai, etc.) to sober maturity (NY, which has been doing the world's tallest buildings for a century); but that makes New York seem like a geriatric case".

Does London seem like a geriatric case?

[Ninjahedge]

London WAS calling...


But it only got his answering machine.

[BrooklynRider]

BrooklynRider, you can't answer this one with a list of achievements if you accept the premise in the question that New York's performance now falls short of other places'...

I don't accept the premise.


So, more interesting than defensiveness or an SSP-style pissing contest would be a thoughtful answer to the question. Fabrizio attempts that, but it's unconvincing... hellagood nails it...

Perhaps, more interesting to YOU. But, this isn't the "ablarc forum" - is it?

The reality is that no one person's opinion is "the standard" against which we will all be measured. And, the introduction of a series of tall and supertall buildings as evidence against the premise that New York is no longer interested in building tall, seems to not warrant further argument.

[Johnnyboy]

New York may be down at fourth for now but due to the 1,000+ skyscrapers
being proposed and build, New York will move up. I see alot of opportunities for New York and we will all be seeing alot of improvements in New York construction projects.

[Johnnyboy]

dam terrorists.

[Fabrizio]

Brooklyn: let´s be fair in quoting....ablarc´s exact quote is: "hellagood nails it, I think".

The "I think" gives it the proper context.

[ablarc]

Ablarc:

"Another reason might be the natural curve that leads from youthful brashness (Dubai, etc.) to sober maturity (NY, which has been doing the world's tallest buildings for a century); but that makes New York seem like a geriatric case".

Does London seem like a geriatric case?
It did until Livingstone came along. Resting on its laurels, all the new stuff timid and bad.

Now they're doing some of the best skyscrapers anywhere; London's reinventing itself in dynamic fashion and providing mostly good example.

Ninjahedge, I doubt anyone on this forum needs reminding that skyscrapers aren't the essence of excellence in any city, nor that some abominable acts have been stopped by organized protest.

MRoberts asked a legitimate question based on an observation that isn't hard to understand: New York's current crop of skyscrapers is middlin', and it wasn't always so.

As for the contention that any entrenched tenant's view or sunlight should be sacred: that's preposterous.

When community opposition to a new project is good, it's because the interests of the entire community are represented; and that community is everybody on the globe; we're all keepers of the world's heritage. That's the kind of representation that saved Grand Central, not some selfish jerk's objection to having his precious view blocked. To that I say: "so what?"

[BrooklynRider]

Is it that New Yorkers just don't see themselves as trendsetters in this area anymore?

Trendsetting is more exciting when you are blazing a new path and actually creating the new trend. The initial building of skyscrapers was trendsetting. It's been done and New York and Chicago did it.


Or is it that New Yorkers don't even realize how other cities are overtaking them?

I think New Yorkers would always like to host the tallest building in the world, but we are also realists. Other cities might overtake us in height or numbers of skyscrapers, but, I think, as a city we are pretty confident in our stature. I don't see an argument in pursuing a race against "lists".

It just seems like this was such a defining aspect of the city for so long, seems strange to see it simply stop in this respect.

It wasn't so much a defining aspect of "the city" as it was a defining aspect of individuals and companies - who happened to be based here. The globalization of the economy has spread the wealth and the construction. Rather than seeing a 2500ft Bank of America Tower in one city, you see 500 to 1000 foot Bank of America buildings around the nation and world.

It's not 1930 anymore.

[Fabrizio]

Ablarc: MRoberts concern is about NYC´s failure to keep up in the race to build tall.

"Is it that New Yorkers just don't see themselves as trendsetters in this area anymore? Or is it that New Yorkers don't even realize how other cities are overtaking them?"

He is talking about NYC being overtaken in the building of "tall towers" by the likes of "Hong Kong, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpu, Dubai..."

London maybe doing "some of the best skyscrapers anywhere" but the subject is about building tall. Do you really think London is concerned that Hong Kong, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpu and Dubai are building taller? It´s just not a concern. Even so, I don´t think London can be accused of being "geriatric" because of it.... nor can NY.

You also write: "As for the contention that any entrenched tenant's view or sunlight should be sacred: that's preposterous".

Ablarc, it is also preposterous to think that people will not fight for their quality of life.

[sfenn1117]

We have tried to build many tall buildings.......Travelstead, South Ferry, Television City, but for various reasons they never went through.

Obviously 9/11 put a gaping hole in the skyline in the most horrific way possible......but it bothers me that some on this forum lament the loss of the towers over the loss of human life.

Currently we're building taller than we have since the early days, with many 1,000 footers. Yet, they are only 1,000 footers by spire. Still in 5 years our top 10 will dramatically change. BOA disappoints me, I wouldn't mind seeing a 1,500 foot building there, such a prime location, probably the last great development site in midtown. Our final frontier is the West Side......we have to build tall there. If you think 1,000 footers will actually be built on the ConEd site....you're dreaming. Probably more ~750 footers like the rest of midtown. But downtown in 5 years= Something amazing. 3 new icon buildings.....Gehry, Calatrava, Freedom. But after these are built, there's practically no more room to build large towers downtown.

The sad reality is......it's Dubai's turn. NY built new and ever higher worlds tallest buildings from the early 1900s to the 1970s. Then Sears Tower was built, and NYC lost that title forever. Yes, I said forever. However tacky Dubai may be, they are proposing 2,000 foot buildings left and right, one being well off the ground.

In 50 years, maybe there will be a need for futuristic 2,000 foot buildings, a la Star Wars, but today, there isn't, at least in NY. But I'm still happy to live in the greatest city in the world, WTB or not, there are still thousands of skyscrapers to entertain us and keep us happy.

[TonyO]

New York's rate of building skyscrapers isn't at pace with some other skyscraper hubs and so NY is in decline in this respect? Did you ever consider that those cities will also go through their own slow-downs and that NY's pace may pick up?

This is simply a perception issue and a superficial one at that.

[yyy]

It's really not size that matters - I like some NY skyscrapers more than any others in the world even if they're not the tallest ones. And also even if not all are new - the first ones, like the Chrysler building and ESB, looks better than some new ones. The Sears tower, for example, doesn't look so good in contrast to most of the NYC buildings, even though it's taller than them.

What I'd want to see in NY are good looking buildings and not necessarily taller ones.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I would like to see some good looking taller ones. After all, tall buildings have been Manhattan's physical distinctness for a century.

[elfgam]

It's really not size that matters - I like some NY skyscrapers more than any others in the world even if they're not the tallest ones. And also even if not all are new - the first ones, like the Chrysler building and ESB, looks better than some new ones. The Sears tower, for example, doesn't look so good in contrast to most of the NYC buildings, even though it's taller than them.

What I'd want to see in NY are good looking buildings and not necessarily taller ones.

It's a sad commentary on the state of architecture that size and quality are put as two opposing characteristics. Thankfully, I think your fears are misplaced. In Chicago, SOM's 7 Dearborn (does anyone have an image of it to upload?) would have been amazingly beautiful, and amazingly tall. Calatrava's propsed 2000-footer there is gorgeous well. Norman Foster's proposal for the WTC also was amazing. The problem is indeed that the same closed minded attitude in New Yorker's that pevents truly TALL buildings from being built also, in general, prevents truly GREAT buildings from being built as well.

As for room? Many of these cities are building these amazing buildings not in their central, developed cores but at the periphery. Who says we can't have the world's tallest building in Brooklyn or on the north shore of staten island, or in Long Island City?

[ablarc]

Ablarc, it is also preposterous to think that people will not fight for their quality of life.
You could say, "Let 'em fight, just so they don't win." Problem is, in the process of fighting they often bottle up a project long enough that it's abandoned.

That way, they get to keep their view or their sunshine; and the rest of the world --starting with the developer, the job-seekers, the tax departments and ending with us unimportant urbanophiles-- all lose.

[MRoberts]

First, as someone who has lived in other countries for many years, I can tell you that New York City, Empire State Building, and skyscrapers, are synonymous around the world, even today. It is natural that the city would be identified and defined by an aspect of architecture in which it had been uniquely preeminent for so long.

I think ablarc has really helped get to root of the matter, in part by some of the responses he has provoked. I think some have exposed unwittingly, why New York City is no longer the leader it was once was. For example: regulations and parochial interest now trump any grand designs in ways they didn’t back in the 1920’s and 30’s. Perhaps New York has reached a point of ‘maturity,’ where leading in the field of super skyscrapers is no longer important – nothing wrong with that. But, as ablarc points out, NYC is noit leading in the other fields noted by others as important.

However, when I visit my friends in NYC, I get the feeling that New Yorkers assume that NYC will always be at the center of the world, just as Londoners did 100 years ago. But, London was replaced – by New York. London is still a great city, it is no New York or Hong Kong. I venture to say that the characteristics of youth, vigor, brashness, (slight immaturity?) that catapulted New York to the top are the same ones you find today in Hong Kong and Shanghai, and the skyscrapers they build are more than just dazzling – they portend of things to come.

[Fabrizio]

Ablarc:

You write ".....they get to keep their view or their sunshine; and the rest of the world --starting with the developer, the job-seekers, the tax departments and ending with us unimportant urbanophiles-- all lose".

There is another scenario: the developer is forced to build lower and the neighborhood retains it´s characteristic ambience and becomes ever more desirable as a place to live and visit. Other similair new structures are built sensitive to the neighborhood´s established feel. Older buildings are restored and renovated. New business come in. And so on.

The developers, the job-seekers, the tax departments and ending with us unimportant urbanophiles-- all win.

[Eugenius]

When talking about a "race," it is important to note who is competing. In New York, with the notable exception of the WTC, the construction of tall buildings was spearheaded by real estate developers and private corporations. As a result, New York's skyscrapers, whether supertall or middling, were always practical and profit-driven. New York never competed for "image." That's what always separated New York from Dubai. In New York, skyscrapers are a necessity dictated by real estate economics. In Dubai, the supertall is a gimmick, just like "the world's biggest couch" or "worlds biggest gathering of men named Mohammed."

If you look at the range of supertalls built in Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai and Taipei, you'll note a common feature - they are government sponsored, and they are unprofitable. A recent post noted that Taipei 101 is about 30% full. No developer would build a structure in New York with those kinds of economics.

[hella good]

it is true that many new yorkers think that it is the centre of the world, and in a lot of ways it is. it doesnt need to put itself in the skyscraper race anymore, its past that. it is at a classy stage. whereas some cities could be quite 'low class' and others middle, new york can be one of the cities that is at the top of the upper class. it has gained its profile and will never lose it.

although i think that this is not the main issue, as someone has already pointed out there is not always a great need for skyscrapers, especially now that other cities are being chosen for headquarters instead of new york. and it doesnt matter either.

im sure that one day there will be a major surge again and the city will be top of the charts. until then lets just take it as it comes.

[ablarc]

There is another scenario: the developer is forced to build lower and the neighborhood retains it´s characteristic ambience and becomes ever more desirable as a place to live and visit. Other similair new structures are built sensitive to the neighborhood´s established feel. Older buildings are restored and renovated. New business come in. And so on.

The developers, the job-seekers, the tax departments and ending with us unimportant urbanophiles-- all win.
Can't argue with that; doing so would be agreeing to be cast as straw man.

Now, how about if a place isn't necessarily best served by a low rise, except in the minds of the NIMBYs? Plenty of examples of that.

[Fabrizio]

MRoberts:

"I venture to say that the characteristics of youth, vigor, brashness, (slight immaturity?) that catapulted New York to the top are the same ones you find today in Hong Kong and Shanghai, and the skyscrapers they build are more than just dazzling – they portend of things to come".

I don´t think so. You´re forgetting that NYC is an American city... it represented democracy and freedom. Hong Kong is part of China. I just doubt that it or cities like Shanghai, Kuala Lumpu, or Dubai are going to be the new guiding lights for the world...

[ablarc]

I don´t think so. You´re forgetting that NYC is an American city... it represented democracy and freedom. Hong Kong is part of China. I just doubt that it or cities like Shanghai, Kuala Lumpu, or Dubai are going to be the new guiding lights for the world...
Rhetorical sleight of hand: neither building skyscrapers or inspiring the building of skyscrapers has to do with democracy and freedom.

The sun rose today and I saw an accident on my way to work. That doesn't mean sunrises cause accidents.

[Ninjahedge]

Can't argue with that; doing so would be agreeing to be cast as straw man.

Now, how about if a place isn't necessarily best served by a low rise, except in the minds of the NIMBYs? Plenty of examples of that.

How do you "serve" a place if the people that live in it are not being served?

Yo ucan build a great adventure in Grenwitch village and the revenues would be very large, but all the people living there would move out from the "happy people" riding the scream machine. (Extreme example).


NYC was built on finances, and a private feeling that we could build a financial center/capital that the world would have to not only acnowledge, but follow. The people who built them USED them, there was no real government fund for the development of the supertall!

Now places put in their own "Arabic Disney" (Dubai) and we are supposed to look at it as if that town is now more of a world player because it has the tallest unoccupied building in the world?

Measuring urban development by the sheer size of a structure is one of the most ironically infantile phallic driven pieces of crap I have heard of. The tall buildings were what New York was made of, not what made New York.



Oh, also, as for building tall buildings in the surrounding districts, that would not be the same. People do not consider Downtown Brooklyn to be NYC. They consider it to be, well, BROOKLYN! Although they are both technically IN NYC, they do not fit the same world distinction.


So all these cities that were NOT built on an island and have plenty of sprawl space are building huge buildings in what is also not an expensive area to aquire land, while NYC, with residences AVERAGING at over $1M and still home to millions of working people from miles around, is losing the competition because it does not have the tallest buildings.....

Hmm. OK.

We lose. Now pardon me, I have some buildings to design.

[Fabrizio]

Ablarc: follow the thread. MRoberts writes:


"However, when I visit my friends in NYC, I get the feeling that New Yorkers assume that NYC will always be at the center of the world, just as Londoners did 100 years ago. But, London was replaced – by New York. London is still a great city, it is no New York or Hong Kong. I venture to say that the characteristics of youth, vigor, brashness, (slight immaturity?) that catapulted New York to the top are the same ones you find today in Hong Kong and Shanghai, and the skyscrapers they build are more than just dazzling – they portend of things to come."

Note: "the characteristics of youth, vigor, brashness, (slight immaturity?) that catapulted New York to the top are the same ones you find today in Hong Kong and Shanghai..."

He also talks about London as a great city being "replaced" by NYC and alludes to Hong Kong and Shanghai as possibly doing the same. Becoming the world´s NEXT great cities.... replacing NYC.

I doubt it. Besides youth, vigor, brashness and immaturity catapulting New York to the top, I say it was also it´s freedom and democracy ....those concepts were an important part of that city becoming great... of being a standard... a point of reference...an example. I doubt that Shanghai, Kuala Lumpu, or Dubai will ever become places to look to and become truly great cities. They´ll be cities with very dazziling skyscrapers...no doubt exciting, and economic engines... but "great" as NYC or London? I guess it depends on your idea or "great". I think they can only be as great as the countries they find themselves in. As I said, I doubt that they´ll ever become guiding lights for the world...

[elfgam]

1. London was replaced by New York, yet now is back on the cutting edge is well on its way to replacing NY as the most dynamic city on earth.

2. The points on this thread are right: the super-tall buildings in NYC are the result of private need, private money, and private power -- not the artificial creation of some totalitarian state (China, Dubai, Malaysia, etc.) trying to push national pride. Let's not forget that if we have a class A vacancy rate of 8% it's a bad year, whereas in Shanghai right now they have a vacancy rate of more than 60% in the pudong. China WILLED Shanghai's new downtown into existence to be able to say that it will compete with NY, whether it makes economic sense or not.

3. That being said, though, the lack of new super-tall skyscrapers in NY is abundantly clear... IT'S TO EXPENSIVE TO BUILD THEM HERE. If this were not so, private developers would build them. To build super-tall in NYC is too expensive because of taxes, zoning, labor costs, material costs, and the guaranteed years of lawsuits and government/public intervention. If we would only make it cheaper then developers would jump at the opportunity to build super tall. For example: city could zone several blocks in mid-town west (as it is doing) with no zoning or heights limits and limit tax on property value to say bottom 40 stories only.

4. Multi-polar cities are the wave of the future (look at London, or Manhattan now, or Shanghai, or Hong Kong). Saying the Brooklyn is not Manhattan changes nothing. Allow the big developments to spring up in Long Island City -- no height restrictions, nothing -- who's there to protest or be bothered? Allow this to be the sister zone to Mid-town, it's close enough -- it could become the canary wharf or La Defense to Manhattan.

[MRoberts]

I’d like to think that Fabrizio is right that somehow freedom and democracy have something to do with maintaining (or even guaranteeing) a city’s preeminence. However, history over the last 5,000 years does not show that to be the case (please do not cite our current experience as that would be tautological). Besides, who is to say China won’t continue to reform, allowing Hong Kong or Shanghai to eventually even Fabrizio’s idea of what the world’s greatest city should be?

I’m glad Fabrizio values New York’s position as the leading proponent of American ideals. I just don’t see that it is guaranteed.

My interest of course, is in skyscrapers, and how New Yorkers view how they’ve been eclipsed in recent years in this respect. Do they care? (apparently, many don’t). Are they in denial of how much the architectural excitement has moved elsewhere? (I’m getting a little bit of this feeling, but I may be premature).



By the way, as I understand it, the WTC and the Empire State were built with government involvement, and both were opposed on the grounds that they were not needed (too many vacancies).

[ablarc]

MRoberts, see what you have done? Ask a simple question, and fifteen hours later, you have 33 answers.

Denial? You bet.

[Ninjahedge]

Denial? You bet.

No it isn't.



Anyway, elf, multipolar does have something to do with how the town itself is viewed. It is no longer seen as THE center, but a conglomoration of centers. What would happen if Jersey City were to become as built up as midtown Manhattan? Would that mean that NYC woudl now be considered the largest, or would it simply make the NYC AREA the largest? I would not see building up LIC, Yonkers or Brooklyn as adding to NYC, and neither would the world.

Right or wrong, it is a question of perception.

PS, thank GOD for NIMBYS in some areas. If you want to see what happens where there are none, ride down the riverside road in NJ (weehawken, Edgewater, etc). Take a look at the line of condos coming right up along the riverside, sans bike path, blocking view of the NYC skyline to all those in cars or in buildings lower than 4 stories behind them.

Also look at the new development that is building a 15 or so story residential structure whos one corner comes within 8 feet or so of the roadway.

We are getting a nice manmade canion there, the same as would have been built along the entire coastline of manhattan if they had not made SOME attempt at preventing this.

[Fabrizio]

MRoberts:

An aside: Down there somewhere is a thread (sorry I´m rushing and would post it) about what city could be considered "The Capital of the World" ( different I know, than "greatest" but...). You really should read the posts about London and how it continues to be great , surpassing NYC in many respects. The statistics are surprising. But it has never played the "worlds tallest building" race.

About China: China reforming? Don´t hold your breath. Will the Chinese language become the worlds international language as English (the language of London and NYC) is? Will it create culture.... music, film, theatre... that is able to speak to the entire world and that is truly influential? I could go on and on but the flashy skyscrapers of China or Arab countries or 3rd world countries is NOT going to be the factor in making their cities enjoy the greatness of a NYC or a London.

[Fabrizio]

Ablarc:

"MRoberts, see what you have done? Ask a simple question, and fifteen hours later, you have 33 answers.

Denial? You bet".


Ablarc: that´s snide. MRoberts has 33 answers because ... well that´s what a forum is about....discussion.

Denial? I think there have been some very valid, well expressed opinions here. To blithely pass them off as "denial" is awfully imperial.

[yyy]

It's a sad commentary on the state of architecture that size and quality are put as two opposing characteristics. Thankfully, I think your fears are misplaced. In Chicago, SOM's 7 Dearborn (does anyone have an image of it to upload?) would have been amazingly beautiful, and amazingly tall. Calatrava's propsed 2000-footer there is gorgeous well. Norman Foster's proposal for the WTC also was amazing. The problem is indeed that the same closed minded attitude in New Yorker's that pevents truly TALL buildings from being built also, in general, prevents truly GREAT buildings from being built as well.

As for room? Many of these cities are building these amazing buildings not in their central, developed cores but at the periphery. Who says we can't have the world's tallest building in Brooklyn or on the north shore of Staten island, or in Long Island City?

I don't put size and quality as opposing characteristics - I just say that size doesn't necessarily mean quality. I, personally, like tall buildings - they show power and achievement. But people compete who's going to build the tallest building instead of who's going to build the most beautiful and useful building - that's what I'm against.

And by the way, I totally agree that NYC should start building skyscrapers neighborhoods outside Manhattan. I'd be happy to see some skyscrapers in the Staten Island and Brooklyn.

[ablarc]

Fabrizio, what you think I said wasn't intended. I meant no link whatever between the first sentence of my post, which was intended purely as a good-natured salute to newbie MRoberts on the excellent and thought-provoking question he'd asked, and the stimulating discussion that ensued --to which you were a prime contributor.

The second sentence was meant to stand alone. I'm sure you can find plenty of denial in the thread, sometimes laced with sour grapes. I stand by that.

Nothing snide was intended. Let me apologize for being insufficiently alert for the potential misreading that actually took place. Must be more careful in future with my proofreading. It would also help if you were less anxious to find fault. :)

[MRoberts]

I don't know if building great skyscrapers make a city, but it certainly gets people's attention, and well, it does make them physically imposing, if nothing else. Kuala Lumpur put itself on the map that way. But, I do suggest that they may be a modern manifestation of a city's power and dynamism. Just a suggestion. Is New York's waning preemenince in this one very visible respect a manifestation of its waning preeminencein commerce, etc? Please, I am not saying it is not still great or very important today, only talking about very real, measurable trends in commerce, technogical development, corporate headquarter locations, etc.

I also think that Fabrizio is short-changing the Arabs and Asians in what they have to offer in terms of art and culture. And, you seem to be coming very close to saying it is impossible that NYC will be replaced as the world's no 1 city.

[lofter1]

Regarding a ciity maintaining it's top position, sometimes things change in wholey unexpected ways:

Don't forget about Lisbon. About 250 hundred years ago it was one of the grandest, most beautiful cities in the world -- and held a great share of power. All it took was 10 minutes of shaking from a series of the most devastating earthquakes in recorded history and the fate of Lisbon was altered forever (November 1, 1755).

NYC will fall from it's high place at some point as well -- hopefully at a time far into the future. But it will happen. It's the way the world goes.

[TomAuch]

NYC will inevitably fall from #1, but will do so when America as a whole falls behind to China, or the EU if they get their act together. It doesn't matter how many skyscrapers we build. I'm glad that the FT, BOA, NYT, and 80 South St. are going up, but their construction alone will not change NYC's fate.
2,500 years ago, Athens was at its peak until it was defeated by Sparta. Later on, "all roads led to Rome" until the empire fell to corruption and invasions by the Visigoths and the Huns. Baghdad was "the place to be" during the height of the Islamic Caliphite, until it was destroyed by the Mongols. Ditto for Toledo, Spain, Nanjing, China, and the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, the artificial island (sounds familiar?) with a population bigger than 15th century Paris but without the sewage.

[alonzo-ny]

Its stupid to think ny will never build tall again it just doesnt need to go massive just yet, i think in a few years something huge will spring up somewhere. The economy aint great right now and there are still huge buildings going up so how do you think it will be when the going getsd better. I agree that something big is going to go up on the westside, and theres always Mr. Trump

[pianoman11686]

Besides the EU statement, that's an excellent observation. Hegemony as the world's greatest civilization and/or city is cyclical, and there's no reason to think America/New York will stray from the historical trend. Although, I think it's worthwhile to point out that despite Britain's gradual decline since the beginning of the 20th century, when it controlled roughly 25% of the world's land and people, London has maintained its preeminent role as one of, if not the, greatest city, using a bunch of criteria that I don't feel like listing right now. Just from what I've read recently, the rank of world cities is, in order: London, New York, Tokyo, Paris. Those are the top four, and the step down to number five is a big one. I guess it's somewhat comforting to know that London and Paris have been top-tier cities for centuries and continue to excel despite the greatest competition ever. It makes me feel that New York has a long way to go before it begins its decline, and it definitely is on the rise. As for building tall, it's all about economics, as many have mentioned. I think what's happening now is a little annoying for some people, albeit necessary, for New York to become ever more desirable as a place to live and do business in. Real estate is the driving force for the city's coffers, and the more money it has to spend on various improvements, the better the quality of life will be. And no, I can't begin to imagine New York becoming cheaper at any point in the future. That's not a bad thing, with London being proof of that.

[Ninjahedge]

I don't know if building great skyscrapers make a city, but it certainly gets people's attention, and well, it does make them physically imposing, if nothing else. Kuala Lumpur put itself on the map that way. But, I do suggest that they may be a modern manifestation of a city's power and dynamism. Just a suggestion. Is New York's waning preemenince in this one very visible respect a manifestation of its waning preeminencein commerce, etc? Please, I am not saying it is not still great or very important today, only talking about very real, measurable trends in commerce, technogical development, corporate headquarter locations, etc.

I also think that Fabrizio is short-changing the Arabs and Asians in what they have to offer in terms of art and culture. And, you seem to be coming very close to saying it is impossible that NYC will be replaced as the world's no 1 city.

It is not that they do not have anything to offer, it is that they seem to be less willing to accept others.

The US is the great mixing bowl, it never truly melts everyone together. But it is very accepting of whatever croutons you put in the salad.

China prohibiting its own pople to see anything it does not approve of, and similar doctrines of class and sexist culture in the Arab world do not point to a good axis for cultural development.

Aslo, as pointed out, the buildings attract attension, but they do not indicate any sort of preeminence. NYC was built from the inside, with quite a few rocky periods in between. These places seem to be built and hope oneday to HAVE an inside.

NYC will not be the world capital forever, but the production of purely tall buildings is not an accurate barometer of the cultural weather.

[JCMAN320]

Yeah NYC may fall behind in skyscrapers, but it will never lag in culture and is which makes this city one of the great world cities. No one has the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Brooklyn Bridge, Federal Hall, Wall St, Time Sq, Central Park. Also the geography here is unique, other cities may be on the side of lakes or rivers, but no city has a central island surrounded by its outer boundraies and water ways. Geography is destiny and NY's harbor is what made this city competitive and succesful to begin with. The skyscrapers followed with the ports, banks, insurance companies, etc.... All cities fall and rise in rankings, it is just the way the world works and evolves but NY will never stay down forever and will eventually build in it's surrounding territories and rise again to the top of the heap.

[TomAuch]

Yeah NYC may fall behind in skyscrapers, but it will never lag in culture and is which makes this city one of the great world cities. No one has the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Brooklyn Bridge, Federal Hall, Wall St, Time Sq, Central Park. Also the geography here is unique, other cities may be on the side of lakes or rivers, but no city has a central island surrounded by its outer boundraies and water ways. Geography is destiny and NY's harbor is what made this city competitive and succesful to begin with. The skyscrapers followed with the ports, banks, insurance companies, etc.... All cities fall and rise in rankings, it is just the way the world works and evolves but NY will never stay down forever and will eventually build in it's surrounding territories and rise again to the top of the heap.

On the plus side, if Manhattan gets built out for tall buildings, then perhaps Brooklyn, Long Island City, and Jersey City could take over. I would love to be able to see world class skylines on each side of the Hudson and East Rivers.
However, NYC will do just fine, regardless of how tall its skyscrapers are in a generation from now. Besides, who the hell wants to go to Kuala Lampur or Shanghai? They may be doing well, but I doubt that they will ever have the world class appeal of NYC.

[bkmonkey]

According to Wikipedia, New York still has the majorty of skyscrapers that are 50 storyes and above in the world. While many cities build these skyscrapers for asthetics, they often fail to attract cliente. New York has built skyscrapers, but our skyscrapers, are built to attract buisness, not take up space. New York is considered the skyscraper capital of the world, because its thousands of skyscrapers are in such close proximity. I also hate to point out, that this study is flawed, it ranks Chicago above NYC in terms of skycrapers (which is ridiculous). They slammed new york for the loss of the WTC complex, and ignore the bigger one being built. They do not take into account the huge projects taking place around the city, while baseing the rannkings of other cities almost exclusivly on planned and under construction projects. They also compare New York to cities that are much larger in terms of landpace. This hurts nyc, because Jersey City and Newark are in relitivly close proximity to manhattan, while Shanghi, covers an enormus space. The numerous skycrapers in Jersey city and Newark are not counted in NYCs favor. When they claimed NYC was after Chicago, it destroyed their credibility, the study is quite flawed. The New York metro area, is still the greatest in terms of skycrapers.

[elfgam]

I think that London is a great example for what New York could be as the USA inevitably shifts from being the numero uno superpower to being an economic giant among many (EU, China, India, etc.). Even though the British Empire has long been eclipsed, London is now the most sought after adress in the world (along with NY). It's no accident that the rich and powerful of every country from China to India to Europe to Africa to Russia (and our own Madonna, for shame!) choose to maintain homes, if not their entire lives in London. London, equally to New York, is the pre-eminent world city for media, culture, finanance, architecture (both projects and the location of firms), and is the socio-political heart of Europe (no matter what the french say).

This all happened to London in the 1990s, after going through some serious duldrums in the late 70s and 80s, made most manifest when Prince Charles was able to declare invalid the winning entry to the National Gallery museum competition, which was a modern scheme, and insisted on a neo-classical recreation by Venturi. Londoners woke up to realize that their city was the laughing-stock of Europe with horrible food. All the great fahsion houses had died, British industry was in shambles, the big british banks were in trouble, the city's infrastructure was falling apart, and few good new buildings had been built since the 40s. The city was fragmented politically and socially.

What did they do? They reinvented themselves and fifteen years later look at them. Hopefully New York won't have to go down as low as they did -- and if we look around now I think we can see the spirit of re-invention fully at work here. NYC is the creative and socio-economic engine of the world -- if we continue to re-invent what this means, we'll be just fine.

[MRoberts]

In response to BLMonkey: No site that I know of rates NYC as number one with its skyline anymore; Not Emporis, not Best Skylines, and of course, not Ultrapolisproject. Note that ultrapolis says "Tallest" not "greatest" which is a bit more subjective. You say New York is "slammed" for losing the WTC. All they did was point out how the loss of the WTC affected the rankings. If anything, the site seems positively regretful about that. You also take fault with it because it doesn't take into account buildings that are not built yet. The site clearly says "as of the end of 2004." All cities are compared under the same standard. Finally, the accompanying article actually pays homage to NYC, and points out that NYC is still number one in terms of how many true skyscrapers it has, as compared to other cities. NYC is not being slammed by anybody. We arec just talking about the facts on the ground, and what they might mean.

[MRoberts]

bkmonkey, my apology for misspelling your username.

[BrooklynRider]

What is the mathematical equation for calculating the "tallest" and / or "greatest" city?

How do each of those sites develop their ratings?

[Ninjahedge]

I think they do it by "tallest" and "newest"

Two very unsubstantial delimiters for "greatest".

[Dynamicdezzy]

I apologize if this was mentioned already ( I didn't feel like reading the whole thread....lazy) But one major reason why things don't get built like they used to (the rate that everyone else is building now) is because of money. It costs a $hit load more to pay union workers for a project and it also takes longer. I'm pretty sure the majority of these asian cities or even arab cities do not pay that high for their labor. Besides NYC doesn't build to have half empty towers but rather build on demand for office space. If more business comes then more buildings will rise. Its as simple as that. I didnt think it was that hard to understand?

[alonzo-ny]

NY will build big again when the time is right. When shanghai realises how much surplus office space it has its not going to need any more for about 50 years. I agree that no one wants to go to kuala lumpur just because of the towers there, i have a friend from there and he says right next to the towers are ghettos. The same for taipei, almost no one i know has heard of it and if i ask them the name of taiwans capital they dont know. I takes alot more than a couple of big buildings to create a great city. Also i think this thread is immensely of topic as it was to talk about ny and its skyscraper future not the world most cultural city. On that topic though London is a good comparison as its still one of the greatest cities in the world along with ny tokyo and paris and i think ny will always be one of the greatest. What would be the next best city as someone mentioned there is a big drop between 4 and 5

[MRoberts]

What is the mathematical equation for calculating the "tallest" and / or "greatest" city?

How do each of those sites develop their ratings?

Each site usualy tells you something about how they decided to do it. For example, a site that features "the Best Skylines" (easier to Google it than to give you their convoluted url) says they measure all of a city's buildings above 90 meters (about 25 stories). This seems to measure breadth as much as height, and ranks high those cities with many buildings, as opposed to cities with the tallest. Then again, they don't say "tallest skylines." The ultrapolis site says they looked at the ten tallest towers and buildings of each city, and through some calculation giving less value to spires and towers, came up with an average height (they don't give too much detail, though). Emporis also has one, and they explain theirs also; but theirs also seems to give even more weight to breadth.

[BrooklynRider]

Is there an accurate way and / or source to determine all buildings over 25 stories in every city? How would a person do that in NYC - or more specifically how would these sites have determined this?

[jiw40]

Hey,Dynamicdezzy,you have no idea what you're talking about.Union jobs go up MUCH faster than SCAB jobs.The reason buildings cost what they do is determined by many factors,not the least of which is the General Contractors profit.Come back to talk about job productivity,completion dates,and who profits most on a job when you have some accurate information.PS did you ever stop to think that if it was so costly and unprofitable to build than why do banks and other investors keep shoveling money into it?

[MRoberts]

Is there an accurate way and / or source to determine all buildings over 25 stories in every city? How would a person do that in NYC - or more specifically how would these sites have determined this?

Actually, until skyscraperpage.com put online an incredible catalog of what seems to be all high rises in all major cities of the world, this would have been very difficult, except for North American cities, which have been meticulously cataloged in almanacs for decades. So, that data is now online, though anyone doing any kind of study needs to be sure and verify what they can with a second source (errors do show up).

[Dynamicdezzy]

I apologize if i made my answer seem that way. I didnt mean to say (thats if i did) that it wasn't profitable. I was just saying that in certain places (like here) it would cost more to construct a tower in comparison to other locations where steel might be cheaper. While Mexico's labor is alot cheaper than the US', the steel prices are high. My response was leaning towards that. Again I apologize If i didn't elaborate and was way off from making myself clear. I didnt think anyone here would be so anal for a complete broken down response. ....and if I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

[BrooklynRider]

Union Labor on huge jobs can keep things moving - IF THEY WANT. But they do drive prices up and they can and do HOLD THINGS UP when it suits their agenda.

And, not all unions are equal. Explain to me all the teamster jobs that are "required" by collective bargaining, but only require that a teamster be "on site" as opppsed to fulfilling a building need.

Labor has its attributes, but it needs to be reformed to reflect the real world. For instance, most people constribute signficantly to medical insurance and have vacation periods from 2 weeks to 4 weeks per year.

I think unions are important in this country but they need major reform to connect in anyway with non-union workers (as opposed to non-union labor). I will add that my brother-in-law works in construction and was in an "unnamed" union for a little over a year. He is a meticulous and industroius worker and was called to the side on numerous occasions by shop stewards and other workers who complained that he was "making everyone look bad by working so hard and so fast". He now runs his own very successful company and will not use union labor.

For a union worker, the incentive is to finish the job professionally and to code - but necessarily as quickly as possible.

[bkmonkey]

My point was,
1) New York definatly has more skycrpaers than chicago, according to Emporis, NYC has more than 5,000 high rises, while Chicago has little more than 1000. However, your sight list Chicago as above New York in terms of skycrapers. That is simply not true.

2) New York City is listed as #1 before the loss of the world trade center complex. I just pointed out that the complex is being rebuilt with even taller buildings than before. In addition, the new buildings built in nyc since 2001 would more than compensate for the hieght of the WTC

4) New York City is compared with cities such as Shangi which are much bigger. The NYC metro area extends far beyond the bounderies of the city proper. Many of these cities have skycrapers that are far apart from each other, because these cities have a greater share of their metro area than nyc does. However Jersey City is undoubtablly part of the New York City Skyline, and Newark is farily close. They should be counted as part of the NYC skyline, as much new development will be taking place in Jersey City over the next few years. New York's skycraper count will never be accurate until this is done, and overall NYC will be much higher in the ranking. Fix these problems, and I will belive the survey, however the flaws remain. In addition, NYC is ranked number two according to Emporis, while It is rankied fourth according to your sight.

[jiw40]

No,you said it costs more to build and takes longer because of union labor,and that's exactly what you meant.You made no mention of cost of materials.I also "broke down" some items for your information,not because I have an "anal" need for it as you suggest.It has become apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about,other than hearsay and isolated instances of "do you know how much union guys make?"and "they MAKE a job last longer."Again,come back for this type of discussion when you have more information,possibly even first hand knowledge,of how a major construction job proceeds.

[kliq6]

NY is not done with Skyscrapers, a stupid thread

[Dynamicdezzy]

Well I was more or less leaning to what BKrider was saying. You are right about hearsay. I've had a couple of friends that have been in construction for years (and it might have been an exception to them or their business) but some of the conditions within their contracts allowed for much longer deadline. (I guess one of the reasons why Trump said he could get the UN done at a cheaper price and a much shorter time period). (honestly) sorry for the shots. If I'm uninformed well then let me go do my research. Lets drop it, it gets annoying when the topic turns from informative to 2 individuals throwing meaningless shots at one another with no progress. Thanks.

[Ninjahedge]

I will add that my brother-in-law works in construction and was in an "unnamed" union for a little over a year. He is a meticulous and industroius worker and was called to the side on numerous occasions by shop stewards and other workers who complained that he was "making everyone look bad by working so hard and so fast". He now runs his own very successful company and will not use union labor.

My father was in a similar situation. He is/was a Plumber. He had problems with the pipefitters because he was doing his job too quickly. They used to park eqipment in front of access so that he could not get to his work for the day.

Nice, eh?


Also, My mother is in the teachers union. She works her BUTT off every day to provide the students whatthey need, but for every teacher that does 110%, there is at least one that is slinking by with the barest minimum.

It annoys the hell out of me whenever someone says the "Teachers union" as if it was poison, but at the same time I can see teh abuse of the system that some of its members practice and get away with.


I guess the key thing here is t not only find the union labor, but a shop that does GOOD WORK. And as for some of the requirements, like having a guy around whose sole dute is to be the unions representitive on the job even though his profession is not used, that is simply a waste of capitol.


As for all this stuff about the sites measuring the skylines, this is getting rediculous. If you wanted to massage numbers like that, all you have to do is adjust the "minimum" height of a building for it to be considered a high rise.

You could also do the % occupancy of said towers to see which are the best TRUE expressions of a city, and which are simply the shells.

[NY_Yankees_1979]

Is it really that important to have such a tall building? NYC has several buildings that would be the tallest building in say Detroit, Philly, Boston, Houston, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and others. I don't really think that building tall is that important when you consider that NYC has the largest downtown area in the United States as far as area goes.

[jiw40]

Agreed.But I just want whoever makes a statement that is seemingly or actually anti-union to be informed and not judgmental based on rumors and "what I heard".I appreciate your taking a step in that direction.I've been a union ironworker for 19 years,and believe me I know labor unions are not infallible,but things are much better with them than without.We want jobs to go well too,performance is what we sell,but we certainly don't shoulder the responsibility for total job costs rising.Thanks for listening to my side of it,and if you have questions about a job we're usually willing to inform people about what we're doing.

[alonzo-ny]

Agreed it is a stupid thread. I dont think there is any accurate way of deciding the best skyline. Chicago may have more taller buildings but ny has way more overall. Hong Kong also has many buildings but a large percentage of them are those project like high rises that everyone lives in over there. Also a skyline like ny is much different from hong kongs as hong kong has a mountain behind it which looks very dramatic but i cant have those awesome views ny has when the sun goes down and also ny is the only one with huge pre-war buildings which are beautiful. All in all all the skylines look good in there differnet ways but new york is clearly the best end of story end of thread, thank you, good night.

[MRoberts]

My point was,
1) New York definatly has more skycrpaers than chicago, according to Emporis, NYC has more than 5,000 high rises, while Chicago has little more than 1000. However, your sight list Chicago as above New York in terms of skycrapers. That is simply not true.

2) New York City is listed as #1 before the loss of the world trade center complex. I just pointed out that the complex is being rebuilt with even taller buildings than before. In addition, the new buildings built in nyc since 2001 would more than compensate for the hieght of the WTC

4) New York City is compared with cities such as Shangi which are much bigger. The NYC metro area extends far beyond the bounderies of the city proper. Many of these cities have skycrapers that are far apart from each other, because these cities have a greater share of their metro area than nyc does. However Jersey City is undoubtablly part of the New York City Skyline, and Newark is farily close. They should be counted as part of the NYC skyline, as much new development will be taking place in Jersey City over the next few years. New York's skycraper count will never be accurate until this is done, and overall NYC will be much higher in the ranking. Fix these problems, and I will belive the survey, however the flaws remain. In addition, NYC is ranked number two according to Emporis, while It is rankied fourth according to your sight.

I'll try this one more time:
1) We're talking tallest, not how many, which is why I agree with the Ultrapolis site. Besides, the Emporis site itself says it is ranking according to "visual impact." As such, I agree with their rankings.

2) Nobody counts buildings that are not built yet. And, if they did, NYC would actually rank lower because other cities are planning even more, taller buildings.

3) Shanghai and Hong Kong occupy less space than NYC, which means they packed more tall buildings in less area.

Finally, I think this thread has run its course. I've learned what I came here for on what New Yorkers think on these changes, and many of those who understood and responded to the original question appear to have left. So, I leave by quoting from the article that provoked this thread in the first place:
"One can easily imagine most typical adult Londoners at the turn of the last century, living in the great heart of the British Empire, going about their daily business, unaware of the great changes that would engulf their children in their adult lives;changes that would wrest from their shoulders the mantle of world power and leadership, and place it in the hands of others far east across the ocean. It is difficult to imagine, let alone comprehend, a world other than the one we know. But, whether we comprehend or not, the forces of human history will not stop.
Everything we do, every choice we make, says something about who and what we are; it says something about what we value. Just as the new records being set regularly in New York City in the early decades of the twentieth century signaled not only the rise of the world's greatest city, but also the world's greatest power, the United States of America, so too, it is telling where the new records are being set today. We can ignore these developments, or be impressed by them. But, we cannot escape the consequence of their meaning."
"http://ultrapolisproject.com/ultrapolis_016.htm

[pianoman11686]

Okay, having heard enough of the back and forth arguing about land areas, I decided to spend a meager five minutes of my time and look them up at Encarta. These are the land areas of the cities proper (not including metro areas):

New York = 786 sq km

Hong Kong = 1,092 sq km

And this is what they had to say about Shanghai: "Shanghai is an independently administered municipal district of 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi). It includes 3 counties and 17 urban districts of the city proper. The urban districts cover 2,057 sq km (794 sq mi), of which about 300 sq km (about 116 sq mi) is built-up and densely populated."

I hope this clears up a few things.

[Jeffreyny]

Bloomberg, NY Times Tower, BoA, Freedom Tower, Beekman Place, 80 South Street.

While some of these are spetacular buildings, none of them achieve the excitment and mystic of even say the Trump Building in Chicago.
Nothing over 1000 ft. in New York in a long time. Bloomberg, NY Times w/out antenna, Beekman Pl. and Bank America all under 1000 ft. The Freedom Tower is the only one that will actually sore over the existing skyline but it won't be any higher than the original Twin Towers in all reality.
New York has some impressively stunning buildings but nothing that soars into the rather leveled midtown skyline.
Sure there are more important things than having the tallest building in the world and New York need not even try to compete for that rather trivial skyscaper battle since it's already a world class city on so many other levels but some buildings to create excitment among those of us who don't follow forums like this might be nice.
Yes...it's time to put New York back on the skyscraper map!

[ablarc]

These are the land areas of the cities proper (not including metro areas):

New York = 786 sq km

Hong Kong = 1,092 sq km

And this is what they had to say about Shanghai: "Shanghai is an independently administered municipal district of 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi). It includes 3 counties and 17 urban districts of the city proper. The urban districts cover 2,057 sq km (794 sq mi), of which about 300 sq km (about 116 sq mi) is built-up and densely populated."

I hope this clears up a few things.
Sorry, but it doesn't, pianoman. Apples to oranges.

That Hong Kong figure includes the New Territories, where you'll find duck farms.

Anyway, what were you hoping to clear up?

* * *

MRoberts, I think I sense your dismay.

[PHLguy]

No one knows the answer, there are far too many hurdles for new york to build a skyscraper. Look at FT, and the lawsuit, we can kiss that building goodbye. But yes, new york is a big city with lots of demand so of course many 900 footers will hopefully be built, NY will never see a WTB or something the height of the trade towers again but it really doesn't need to when you think about it. Dubai just thinks it's hot shit, NY and Chicago blow it away. New york can be a very dissapointing city I will agree, because it moves slow.

[RJW]

Is it really that important to have such a tall building? NYC has several buildings that would be the tallest building in say Detroit, Philly, Boston, Houston, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and others. I don't really think that building tall is that important when you consider that NYC has the largest downtown area in the United States as far as area goes.

A large land mass is no substitute for a dynamic skyline and the most important element thereof is contrast (something only structures taller than their surroundings can deliver). If you look at old prewar pictures of downtown you see a breathtaking skyline that is now lost to the gradual lessening of contrast (plateaus make poor skylines).

[bkmonkey]

No one knows the answer, there are far too many hurdles for new york to build a skyscraper. Look at FT, and the lawsuit, we can kiss that building goodbye. But yes, new york is a big city with lots of demand so of course many 900 footers will hopefully be built, NY will never see a WTB or something the height of the trade towers again but it really doesn't need to when you think about it. Dubai just thinks it's hot shit, NY and Chicago blow it away. New york can be a very dissapointing city I will agree, because it moves slow.

I dissagree, the Freedom tower will be built on schedule, there is way to much riding on that. NYC is just going through a phase. ( Just as it did when it tore down the old Penn Station). The reason why Beekman tower (taller than 1000 feet) and 80 south street (taller than 1000 feet) as well as BOA (pretty tall) Miss Brooklyn (pretty tall), the new WTC complex ( entire new downtown area) dont generate much excitment, is because NYC is full of skycrapers. New High rises are built all the time. People are not generally excited by skycrapers as much as they were in the early part of the century. Once this phase of projects is complete, it's quite possible that it will usher in a new era of building, and anti-nimbyism. These huge projects will create quite a bit of precedent.

[ddny]

I don't think NYC is done with skyscrapers yet, but I think NYC has a lot of catching up with good quality architecture.

NYC is sorely behind in terms of the quality of skyscraper design and architecture in general when compared to other world cities.

I hope NYC will follow the footsteps of London, which in my opinion, is designing the best skyscrapers in the world right now. London is on the skyscraper map not because of 1000 footers, but because of the designs of the skyscrapers that are being built or proposed.

I think Hearst Tower and 80 South Street are good buildings for NYC, but the majority of the bunch (e.g. Random House Tower, Time Warner Center, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, etc.) don't really have much to offer.

[PHLguy]

what I think what the title meant was height^


Not sure though.

[RJW]

No one knows the answer, there are far too many hurdles for new york to build a skyscraper. Look at FT, and the lawsuit, we can kiss that building goodbye. But yes, new york is a big city with lots of demand so of course many 900 footers will hopefully be built, NY will never see a WTB or something the height of the trade towers again but it really doesn't need to when you think about it. Dubai just thinks it's hot shit, NY and Chicago blow it away. New york can be a very dissapointing city I will agree, because it moves slow.

So much doom and gloom is completely unwarranted in consideration of the amount (and type) of building activity New York City has seen in the last 380 years. There is just no enduring reason for New York not to see WTC building heights and above again. That mode of thinking is contrary to the American spirit and certainly not representational of New York's (skyscrapers are our heritage). I think the building of superstructures in other parts of the world only help such prospects. Our planet is becoming an incredibly small place and the march forward for all of us should no longer be characterized as a zero sum game.

[bkmonkey]

New York Architecture is very corporate and no nonsense. Think about the old WTC. Its not that nyc is behid the times, its that nyc has its old style.

NYC has many more skycrapers that Chicago, whoever says differently is wrong

The nyc skyline should include Jersey city and perhaps Newark. There are certain points where the Goldman Tower looks like its in manhattan. (looking down west end avenue) It is definatly part of the harbor.

[PHLguy]

NYC has more skyscrapers but chicago is better porportioned, and taller. I love NY but when I look at the skyline driving on the jersey turnpike by the oil refineries all I see is a big clump of 750 foot buildings and the ESB, of cousre the city is far better looking from other angles, such as from queens, I think it blows Chi away from there, but it all depends on where you look at it.

[PHLguy]

So much doom and gloom is completely unwarranted in consideration of the amount (and type) of building activity New York City has seen in the last 380 years. There is just no enduring reason for New York not to see WTC building heights and above again. That mode of thinking is contrary to the American spirit and certainly not representational of New York's (skyscrapers are our heritage). I think the building of superstructures in other parts of the world only help such prospects. Our planet is becoming an incredibly small place and the march forward for all of us should no longer be characterized as a zero sum game.



I'm not trying to be a downer, I'm trying to be realistic.


Reasons buildings will never hit the height of the WTC again in NY (and I do hope I'm wrong)

1. NIMBYS, NY has a shitload of them, and they shorten alot of buildings! (except of corse for ghery tower which ironically the NIMBYS made taller, which tickles me inside. but we'll have to see if it will even get built)

2. Zoning laws. Along with San Francisco NY has some of the strictest zoning laws in the nation.

3. Fear, Fear of terrorism is not over.

4. New Yorkers don't really care about skyscrapers when you look at a broad spectrum. Most aren't Nimbys but most aren't "Yimbys" like us either.

5. Economic. It is not profitable to build towers over 60-70 floors, NY is all about money, Dubai is all about ego.

[RJW]

I'm not trying to be a downer, I'm trying to be realistic.


1. NIMBYS can be broken.
2. Zoning laws can be changed.
3. Terrorism has not stopped the Freedom Tower (hate that name) from getting to 1400 feet or the proposal of a 2000 foot (residential!) tower in Chicago (not NY, I know, but its not exactly a foreign country either).
4. Most New Yorkers never cared about skyscrapers (or even who is President judging by voting statistics) - super skyscrapers are the product of dreamers and ego.
5. Not profitable - I read this a lot - it's the gospel of anti-development leftist NIMBYS - so I refer you to number 4 (super skyscrapers are the product of dreamers and ego) - NIMBYS know it - that’s why they embrace zoning laws (after all, it can't be their concern that a developer might lose his shirt).

[pianoman11686]

PHLguy:

Firstly, part of the reason the skyline doesn't look that great from the turnpike is because there is a huge cliff that stretches for several miles along the Hudson River, and from certain angles, it actually cuts off the view of the bottom half of Manhattan's skyline. As you approach the Lincoln Tunnel on 495, and finally clear the hill when the "helix" begins, the impact is truly stunning, and there is plenty of height to marvel at. It'll only get better as the Hudson Yards area fills in, and surrounding buildings like NY Times and BOA extend corporate Midtown westward.

Secondly, even despite the cliff and the "plateau effect", there is a certain astonishment that most people experience when they first see the skyline from the turnpike, for the simple reason that it stretches on and on and on. Most skylines are defined by 5-10 tall buildings; Manhattan's appears to stretch as far as the eye can see. Most people who have never seen New York in person must wonder, "Wow, is it really that big?" This, I think, is much more awesome than seeing one or two supertalls piercing the sky within a few blocks of each other.

Thirdly, how can you even begin to predict the future? You have no idea what the economy will look like in 5-10 years, locally or nationally. Right now, New York is being fueled by residential development, which results in a lot of 20-30 story buildings. Don't think that there will always be enough room for these. Sure, it costs to build tall, but Manhattan has very finite space, and eventually, residentials will have to go much taller. We're already seeing the beginnings of this at the Con Ed site.

You lament the existence of NIMBY's. Sure, they can be a pain, but the type of construction that will most likely yield the tallest buildings is commercial. The core of Midtown has very few residents, thus there's no reason to expect NIMBY's to oppose commercial supertalls there. Right now, residential construction is the rave. We might well see a period of corporate growth which will result in higher demand for capital and employees, both of which need to be housed in new buildings.

You point out our strict zoning laws. Bloomberg has rezoned more land in the city than any mayor in recent memory. There's no reason to think that he'll stop this habit any time soon. Plus, incentives that often accompany rezonings will make places like the Far West Side a hotbed of development.

You highlight fear of terrorism, yet most people know that the likelihood of another aerial attack is minimal. Terrorists will look to disrupt every day life through mass transit bombings (for the most part) and some will try to detonate biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter how tall your building is in that scenario. It's not a target. The city is. And come to think of it, you'd probably be safest in a tall, modern building with excellent ventilation. The fact that people are coming to New York in droves to live, and companies are also starting to return, signals that "fear" does not affect their conscious decision to live/work in the city.

You point out that most New Yorkers don't care about skyscrapers. I've got a news flash for you. Most, if not all developers, don't care that New Yorkers don't care! They design buildings for specific clients - people or businesses - that are looking for apartments or offices. The more demand, the more construction we'll see.

So, don't get your hopes down. And don't try to get everyone else's hopes down either. There's no way you can prove that your scenario will play out, and mine won't.

[BrooklynRider]

Well, that pretty well sums it up.

[ddny]

New York Architecture is very corporate and no nonsense. Think about the old WTC. Its not that nyc is behid the times, its that nyc has its old style.

London still has it's old style too, but its new architecture is very forward looking. It should be the same with New York.

[RJW]

London still has it's old style too, but its new architecture is very forward looking. It should be the same with New York.

I agree but like to think that things are headed, at least, in the right direction. Conde Nast, NY Times, Time Warner, Bank of America, Hearst, Altantic Yards, Calatrava (transit and 80 south), the Meier condos, even 7 WTC - all these developments are of so much better quality and in some cases forward looking than what we were getting in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

[Ninjahedge]

OK, this is stupid.

Chicago Skyline (copyright Richard Seamen)
http://www.richard-seaman.com/USA/Cities/Chicago/Landmarks/ChicagoSkyline.jpg

Looks like downtown NYC. Not midtown, not anywhere else.

NYC Skyline (JUST Midtown)
http://www.kconnors.com/albums/NYC/skyline.sized.jpg

Shanghai, while diverse, is TINY!
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2004/11/08/chung_shanghai3.jpg

Hong Kong.

Looks a LOT like NYC except for two things.

1. The mountain in the background.
2. The buildings, although about the same size, are more modern in design and construction.

http://my.tdctrade.com/photolib/hk/1100003L.jpg

So please cut it out with this juvenile argument about how "NYC is entering its decline just like the fall of Rome" and "They do not want to build any TALL buildings".

i hate to tell you, but anything above 10 stories is big. 10-30 is a mid-rise. 30-about 50 is a HIGH rise, and above that is a skyscraper, although the two have been used interchangeably depending on where it is.

They have a thread on this here: http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=531

Where the definition is more based on building function than actual height.

So anyone that goes out and looks at a 500 foot tall building and does not think it is a skyscraper just because there are a a dozen buildings that are above 1000ft needs to get their heads out of the sand. You are the same people that buy the bigger TV not because you can actually see anything more on it, but because it is BIGGER. :p


Tallest Buildings: (Sorry for the formatting.....And OK, so there are 25 buildings above 1000ft!)

Rank Building Year M Ft Stories
1 Taipei 101, Taipei, Taiwan 2004 508 1,668 101
2 Petronas Tower I, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1998 452 1,483 88
(tie) 2 Petronas Tower II, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1998 452 1,483 88
4 Sears Tower, Chicago (IL), United States 1974 442 1,450 110
5 Jin Mao Building, Shanghai, China 1998 421 1,380 88
6 Two International Finance Centre, Hong Kong, China 2003 412 1,352 88
7 CITIC Plaza, Guangzhou, China 1997 391 1,283 80
8 Shun Hing Square, Shenzhen, China 1996 384 1,260 69
9 Empire State Building, New York (NY), United States 1931 381 1,250 102
10 Central Plaza, Hong Kong, China 1992 374 1,227 78
11 Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong, China 1989 368 1,209 72
12 Emirates Office Tower, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 1999 355 1,165 55
13 T & C Tower, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 1997 347 1,140 85
14 Aon Center, Chicago (IL), United States 1973 346 1,136 80
15 The Center, Hong Kong, China 1998 346 1,135 73
16 John Hancock Center, Chicago (IL), United States 1967 344 1,127 100
17 Ryugyong Hotel, Pyongyang, North Korea 1995 330 1,083 105
18 Sky Tower, Auckland, New Zealand 1997 328 1,076 ?
19 Burj al Arab Hotel, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 1999 321 1,053 60
20 Chrysler Building, New York (NY), United States 1930 319 1,046 77
21 Bank of America Plaza, Atlanta (GA), United States 1993 312 1,023 55
22 U.S. Bank Tower, Los Angeles (CA), United States 1990 310 1,018 75
23 Telekom Malaysia Headquarters, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1999 310 1,017 55
24 Emirates Towers Hotel, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 2000 309 1,014 56
25 AT&T Corporate Center, Chicago (IL), United States 1989 307 1,007 60

[RJW]

I don’t think anyone is saying that a 750 foot building is not tall so much as lamenting the fact that buildings this height and lower do nothing but reinforce the monotonous plateau our city's skyline has become. As I stated earlier... The most important element of a dynamic skyline is contrast (something only structures taller than their surroundings can deliver). If you look at old prewar pictures of downtown you see a breathtaking skyline that is now lost to the gradual lessening of contrast (plateaus make poor skylines). It is an issue of relativity (not height per se) for if every building in New York were 1500 feet the problem would be the same.

[ablarc]

RJW nails it from an aesthetic standpoint; there's no arguing with the truth of what he says. You can belittle its importance, but you can't dispute the reality of the phenomenon.

[BrooklynRider]

I agree with RJW as well. Also, I think the Chicago picture is rather un representative of the city's "skyline". It is a picture of the Sears Tower - we all know the skyline there is a lot more impressive.

[TallGuy]

Every time I am in Chicago I enjoy looking at the Sears Tower because of its' height, and try to imagine other buildings next to it for comparison (ESB, WTC, FT, Petronas, etc). Other than that, I think it is one UGLY building with awful symmetry and grim black cladding. Thank god it is not marring NYC.

[Ninjahedge]

I agree with RJW as well. Also, I think the Chicago picture is rather un representative of the city's "skyline". It is a picture of the Sears Tower - we all know the skyline there is a lot more impressive.

Then just don't post there, do a google and find a better image man!

[kz1000ps]

Do we really need Brooklyn to Google an image of Chicago for us? And who here on this skyscraper forum is unaware of what Chicago looks like already? Seems kind of redundant in a community like this, Ninja. Like Brooklyn said, "we all know the skyline there is a lot more impressive."

But what the hey - who doesn't mind another good pic of a good skyline.

[Ninjahedge]

KZ, the point is, why spend time posting "Chicago looks better than that" rather than posting an image that gives a better view so that the arguement is either refuted or strengthened.

The only full skyline of Chicago I think I have ever seen was with Ferris Buelers Day Off, and I am sure I am not alone.

Sometimes people do not spend inordanate ammounts of time looking at skylines, or worse yet, arguing about them... ;)

[NewYorkYankee]

Which skyline is better is highly subjective, IMO. To each persons personal tastes and intrests.

[Stern]

RE: This Thread: Who cares?

NYC is the greatest city in the world, bar none.

A better comparrison would be in the number of square feet of office space, height is fickle, NYC is and will continue to be the financial capital of the world.

[kliq6]

Stern is right on. Pure SF and usage of buildings, it is unmatched. Alot of those large Far East buildings are half empty and dont offer as much space as youd think. there more sho wthen substance

[kz1000ps]

KZ, the point is, why spend time posting "Chicago looks better than that" rather than posting an image that gives a better view so that the arguement is either refuted or strengthened.

The only full skyline of Chicago I think I have ever seen was with Ferris Buelers Day Off, and I am sure I am not alone.

Sometimes people do not spend inordanate ammounts of time looking at skylines, or worse yet, arguing about them... ;)


I see what you're saying. You made an interesting point about the scarcity of full skyline pics. I searched my small personal collection with no luck, although I found this (more of an aerial than a skyline shot, and I certainly didn't take this photo).

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6056/chicago11dy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Also, I almost assume that everybody here drools over skyline/whatever photos, a lot. "Spend inordinate amounts of time" describes my online architectural habits quite well :)

[PHLguy]

Every time I am in Chicago I enjoy looking at the Sears Tower because of its' height, and try to imagine other buildings next to it for comparison (ESB, WTC, FT, Petronas, etc). Other than that, I think it is one UGLY building with awful symmetry and grim black cladding. Thank god it is not marring NYC.



It's not a handsome building, I don't think it's THAT bad, I think it's quite sleek. But to each his own opinion. I do agree that it is not nearly as attractive as JHC.


I just got back from Chicago an hour ago, visiting a college in Wisconsin. What a city, so relaxed and athsetically pleasing.

[lesterp4]

I am very familiar with Chicago. It does have a nice skyline. However, it is relatively long and narrow. Most buildings are along the lake front from 1600 N to 400 S. 20 blocks and for most of this stretch it is only 3 0r 4 blocks wide and these are 1/2 the width of midtown blocks. The widest area is probably the Loop and that would be from 100 E to 600W. It hardly comparable to Manhattan. All the very tall buildings are nestled on a very narrow strip of land along the lakefront.

[NYatKNIGHT]

With the exception of the WTC, which is a replacement, NYC has stopped building over 1000 feet. Not so in Chicago.

It doesn't necessarily mean Chicago has a better skyline than New York. Both are mind-blowing in their own way, but I prefer New York's variety of architecture and its incredible immensity. I don't like wishing, however, that New York had a few peaks of loftier towers that rose above the rest, like it used to, or like Chicago has now. It's not because tall buildings aren't being built anymore, it's because there's some barrier in New York lately, the same one that made Trump go to Chicago to have is tall tower built. Hopefully it is temporary, as some have suggested - to me that is the heart of the discussion of this thread: is New York done, or will it surge again?

Why ask 'who cares'? Isn't it obvious that this is a discussion board of mostly skyscraper fans? Besides, we ought to be able to take a little criticism about our own city, after all, that is one thing that sets New York apart from the rest, IMO. Believing we live in the most incredible city in the world, we are secure enough to acknowledge its flaws.

[PHLguy]

thank you^

Outside of the WTC, there is NOTHING over 1000 feet to the roof that will be built for all we know. And the WTC is uncertain itself with all these lawsuits and delays.

[elfgam]

I never realized just how flat chicago is outside of the downtown core... compare it to an aerial pic of NY and you will realize that it's comparing a grove of tree to a jungle...

[ASchwarz]

Chicago has a very small skyline. The city has fewer highrises than London, to say nothing of New York. Comparing the two is silly.

Who cares if Chicago or some third-rate Asian cities build ego-driven towers? Do you want to compare NY to Paris or Dubai?

If Rapid City, South Dakota builds a 1000 foot tower of popsicle sticks, I suppose it should then be crowned the greatest city in the world.

[TallGuy]

Exactly. So what if Dubai has a 2,400 foot needle? New York is a dynamic, ever changing city, and this is expressed in its' skyscrapers from Flatiron to the Art-Deco Chrysler, to the Seagrams style, to the ugly boxes and to BOA, NYT and TWC redevelopment. They all tell a linear story and must be taken in that context to be appreciated. Shanghai? What's to say they won't stop building in 10 years, and in 50years will have a dated, stagnant skyline? It's like an attractive woman: would you rather have natural 36C's or Silicon-inflated 40EE'S?

[PHLguy]

Chicago has a very small skyline. The city has fewer highrises than London, to say nothing of New York. Comparing the two is silly.

Who cares if Chicago or some third-rate Asian cities build ego-driven towers? Do you want to compare NY to Paris or Dubai?

If Rapid City, South Dakota builds a 1000 foot tower of popsicle sticks, I suppose it should then be crowned the greatest city in the world.



Chicago has a small skyline? Are you joking? Dude they have 90 buildings over 500 feet, Downtown Chicago is almost as big as midtown.


It's the 3rd largest skyline in the world actually.

[ASchwarz]

Chicago has a small skyline? Are you joking? Dude they have 90 buildings over 500 feet, Downtown Chicago is almost as big as midtown.


It's the 3rd largest skyline in the world actually.

Not sure what you're talking about. Go to skyscrapers.com and look at Chicago's totals. Chicago is light years from NYC in total number of skyscrapers. This doesn't even take into account that the site has every building in Chicago and is missing thousands of NYC buildings (including three I have lived in).

I'm not sure how you're measuring the "size" of downtown Chicago. Let's take office space. Chicago's core has 1/3 the office space of Midtown and less than 1/5 the office space of Manhattan overall. Let's take residential space. Chicago's densest neighborhoods are about half the density of Brooklyn or the Bronx, to say nothing of Manhattan.

Chicago has a small skyline. It has many tall towers (because of lax zoning and huge parking garage tower bases) but it doesn't even have as extensive a skyline as Toronto.

[PHLguy]

I'm talking about tall buildings not 10 story lowrises, those don't add to a skyline, they add to density.

[PHLguy]

Chicago has a small skyline. It has many tall towers (because of lax zoning and huge parking garage tower bases) but it doesn't even have as extensive a skyline as Toronto.



Chicago is one of the big three toronto rivals houston or dallas.

I'm not going to continue with this, sorry, let's get back on topic

[lesterp4]

I just checked the 2005 World Almanac. Chicago has 80 bldgs over 500 ft. , NYC has 170, Toronto has 13. Chicago had another 40 over 400. They didn't list NYC over 400 because there were too many.

[pianoman11686]

Downtown Chicago is almost as big as midtown.

Not even close. Before 9/11, Downtown Chicago wasn't even bigger than Lower Manhattan, which as we all know, is peanuts compared to Midtown. I've never been to Chicago. My mom went there for a business trip once a few years back. She worked on Broad Street in lower Manhattan at the time. Even then, she was surprised at how tiny Chicago felt. I'm not saying this amounts to a boring skyline, because Sears, John Hancock, Aon, and the Four Seasons Tower are all massive and exciting. But in terms of office space, density, overall coverage by tall buildings - not even close.

[PHLguy]

Im not saying chi is as big, I'm just saying it's not small, As I said before lets talk about something else.

[BrooklynRider]

Chicago is a very impressive city. Its skyline is beautiful because the buildings aren't built smack up against each other like New York. Anyone who has visited the city would find it difficult to deride the skyline or its architecture.

[alonzo-ny]

This another never ending argument

[Ninjahedge]

No it isn't.

[alonzo-ny]

Good one almost replied in anger there!

[TonyO]

Posted on SSP:

Financial Times
(news.ft.com)

High hopes

By Christopher Grimes
Published: September 15 2005 17:07 | Last updated: September 15 2005 17:07

Lord Foster, the renowned British architect, was in midtown Manhattan when the first reports came in that the World Trade Center was under attack. Foster was presenting his plans for a gleaming new steel and glass office tower to his clients - executives of the Hearst publishing company - but on hearing the news he naturally cut it short. He and Frank Bennack, then Hearst’s chief executive, retreated to a boardroom to watch the catastrophe unfold on television. Foster, unable to disregard his architect’s training, explained to Bennack what was happening to the structures as they weakened and collapsed.


In the mournful, confusing weeks that followed, Bennack and Foster were consumed with the question of whether to go ahead with their project. Had the world just witnessed the end of the skyscraper era? What kind of message would it send to build a big, bold office tower in Manhattan? Could New York spare the manpower to build their project, or would the city’s construction crews be needed for the colossal job of rebuilding lower Manhattan?

By November, Bennack had his answer: the Foster design would be built. Foster and Hearst officials took the design to the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, which approved it unanimously - a rare event in the fractious world of New York development. Everyone on the commission knew the significance of Hearst’s decision to build: just weeks after terrorists had destroyed Manhattan’s most visible buildings, a major corporation was making a long-term commitment to a traumatised city.

Four years on, there is an architectural renaissance in New York that would have been difficult to imagine in the weeks that followed 9/11. Since the 1960s, the shape of New York’s skyline has been under the control of savvy developers who made fortunes erecting uniform brick apartment towers and boxy office buildings. Architects wanting to do something new had little choice but to look to Europe or Asia. This is changing: New York is once again becoming a city where adventurous architecture can happen. Many of the world’s top architects are, like Foster, working in the city for the first time.

The outbreak of adventurous design is extremely broad-based. There are public works, most spectacularly Santiago Calatrava’s design for a new transportation centre near the World Trade Center site. There are the midtown office towers: Foster’s Hearst building, Renzo Piano’s design for The New York Times and Cesar Pelli’s new office for Bloomberg LP, all departures from the corporate glass boxes that dominate midtown Manhattan. There are great new cultural designs, including Yoshio Tanaguchi’s elegant expansion of the Museum of Modern Art. Restorations include David Childs’ plan to convert the 1912 beaux-arts Farley Post Office into a desperately needed new Pennsylvania Station. And then there is the High Line, one of those priceless ideas that is often conceived but too rarely executed: the plan is to convert a 1.45-mile-long stretch of disused elevated train track into a public park 30 feet above Chelsea and the Meatpacking District. But perhaps the most heartening of all is the return to interesting residential design, spurred on by Richard Meier’s work on Manhattan’s west side.

I went first to Childs - whose firm Skidmore Owings Merrill has been a dominant force in the city’s architecture for 50 years - to find out why all of this is happening now. “There’s always something about the turn of the century that makes people begin to think about public spaces,” says Childs, who is lead architect of the Freedom Tower on the World Trade Center site. The great discussion about civic design started in the late 19th century in New York, and those concepts were incorporated in the building boom of the early 20th century. “It seems to me this is happening again,” Childs says. “It’s an energising moment.”

Kent Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society, compares the mood in the city not to the early 1900s but to the period after the second world war. “There was an explosion of talent and a sense of optimism. It’s like that today.” New York in 1945 had the advantage of not having been blitzed, but today New Yorkers live with the knowledge that their city is a terrorist target. “One would have thought that in the aftermath of the destruction of lower Manhattan people would have been morose. That seems not to be the case,” he says. “The spirit of the city is very strong. Whether it holds up to rational analysis hardly matters. This is a cause for celebration.”

Though the terrorist threat is a legitimate reason for feeling uneasy about living in New York, it is also something that residents must put out of their heads in order to get out of bed each morning. The improved quality of life in the city - a result of years of lower crime rates - is more tangible. It is easier to feel optimistic about the city without the threat of encountering muggers, squeegee men or junkies. The residential housing boom - while hardly unique to New York - has been widespread for this reason. Yes, prices for Upper West Side apartments have risen dramatically in the past four years. But so have values on the Lower East Side and other neighbourhoods that were blighted by crime and neglect 10 or 15 years ago.

Despite fears of the bubble bursting, the housing boom has played an undeniable role in the city’s architectural renaissance. The old joke about architecture in New York is that form does not follow function - form follows finance. The powerful real estate developers who built most of the city’s housing in the 1970s and 1980s were known for their ability to navigate the city’s bureaucracy, not for their sense of style. They had no time for ambitious architects, who were viewed as prima donnas good for nothing but creating delays and added expense. Big stretches of Manhattan were transformed in this period - particularly on Third and Sixth Avenues, where rows of bland brick apartment buildings were built with great efficiency, but no panache.

Richard Meier’s elegant and slightly eccentric apartment buildings on Perry Street changed that. The minimalist 16-storey buildings, clad in laminated glass, are a perfect complement to the Hudson River, which they face. Built between 1999 and 2002, the Meier apartments sold quickly, and for millions, to celebrities such as Martha Stewart and Calvin Klein. Another Meier is being built on nearby Charles Street, and demand has also been strong. Developers have come to see a use for those fancy architects after all, with Calatrava, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Robert A.M. Stern, Charles Gwathmey and Michael Graves now designing residential buildings in Manhattan, while Meier is starting a project in Brooklyn.

”The very positive response to the two buildings we designed on Perry Street has led some developers to the realisation that good architecture can be profitable - and maybe more profitable than just banal buildings,” Meier says.

The result is that New York is edging back on to the international architectural stage after being perceived by the design community as a risk-averse, corporate city.

”There is certainly a shift,” says Michael Wurzel, a partner at Foster Partners, who is working on the Hearst project. “This can be observed by the number of foreign architects working in New York.” Wurzel, who is based in London, says, “New York always had bold and tall buildings, but in design terms it was not cutting-edge. In the design community it was a conservative place, difficult for architects. But I think this is changing.”

A strong force behind this change is mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration, whose enthusiasm for public design paved the way for Christo’s Gates exhibit in Central Park this winter and the High Line project.

”It is probably the most visually sophisticated administration in the history of the city,” says Barwick of the Municipal Art Society. “They’re very conscious of good architecture, and they want to encourage it.” The mayor’s office has been working to remove some of the notorious red tape that enmeshes the planning and development process - including the monumental task of rewriting New York’s building code, last updated in 1968. The hope is to streamline construction, reduce costs and stimulate development. And Bloomberg’s planning commissioner, Amanda Burden, does not hide her desire to bury the complacency that had dominated development in the city. “If an architect wants to push the envelope, we will help them,” she says. “This is a time for innovation and design excellence. I push it as hard as I can.”

So can any of the city’s architectural re-birth be attributed to 9/11? The answer is yes, in two respects. First, the great public debate over the proposed designs for the World Trade Center site was perhaps the greatest architectural conversation ever. Given the often ugly back-and-forth over the redevelopment in the past 18 months, it is easy to forget the extraordinary public meeting that took place in the summer of 2002, when thousands of people rejected the original lacklustre proposals for the site. “It needs to be bolder,” they shouted, and they forced officials to hold a new design competition. The after-effects of that public conversation are still with us.

Second, some very high-quality designs have been proposed for the site still known as Ground Zero, despite a deeply flawed development process. (Rather than being a public works project, many of the key decisions are being made by a hard-nosed real estate developer.) Some of the world’s most talented architects - Calatrava, Gehry, Childs, Foster and Daniel Libeskind among them - are creating designs for Ground Zero that aim to symbolise the city’s resilience and rebirth. Even if politics or the vagaries of the real estate business prevent the project from living up to those goals, great architecture has already been reborn in New York.

[GVNY]

Absolutely fantastic article.

[Linus]

this may be a little late to reply to but i have to say something about the blue condo being built directly across the narrow street of my 6 story apartment bldg. it basically sucks on so many levels. forget the fact that i went to architecture school and think the design is ridiculous. forget the fact that it's going to cost an estimated $1350 per square foot to live in it (about the same as a tribeca apt with a view). or that it's killing the only part of manhattan that's still cool. the reason i'm writing is b/c i just want everyone who is working on or is excited about this monster to know that they wake me up every morning with extrememly loud construction, are adding to the pollution that already plagues my street, and in a year any remaining sunlight that comes in through my bedroom window will be gone. thanks. how do we stop these bldgs from happening? anyone want to figure this out with me?

[ASchwarz]

Linus,

Move to Staten Island if you hate tall buildings. If you abhor density and tall buildings, then why did you choose to live in Manhattan? Even crazier, you picked an unusually trendy neighborhood experiencing tons of redevelopment and then complain about the construction.

[lofter1]

how do we stop these bldgs from happening? anyone want to figure this out with me?
You could work on getting your neighborhood designated as an historic district and / or landmark district; the building restrictions are much tougher.

Construction noise? I've lived in my place almost half my life and it seems that one building or another on my block is always having some noisy work done. And when they tore down the 4 story concrete garage across the street a couple of years back it was jack hammering from 6AM to 6PM for 6 months.

NYC is a place that has done nothing but change for 400 years. I was walking along Houston near Allen St. the other day and was amazed at the amount of construction in that area. Plus the entire area at the foot of the Manhattan side of the Williamsburg Bridge is probably going to be a very hot construction area within the next few years. And all the area between (basically the "new" LES) is going to go through major changes.

One way you can try to influence the changes that take place in your neighborhood:

Go to Community Board meetings (chances are yours is CB3): http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb_manhattan.shtml

[lofter1]

^ I forgot to add that you could buy up all the property in your immediate area. Then you would control what happens to it.

[BrooklynRider]

Maybe if you get away from your apartment for a little while and abandon the narcissistic predisposition to ask the world to focus solely on you, your needs and desires - you will find that life happens out THERE. Go visit Williamsburg. That is precisely what is going to happen in your neighborhood in coming years. And if you don't own your apartment outright, you might start preparing yourself for eviction when your building gets sold to an Avalon Chrystie or Extell for bigger development.

[ablarc]

Linus, BR's solution is right on the money.

Also I agree with ASchwartz that you should look into Staten Island.

[alonzo-ny]

I found staten island to feel like another country from the rest of new york, i didnt enjoy the time i spent there.

[ablarc]

I found staten island to feel like another country from the rest of new york, i didnt enjoy the time i spent there.
The people who live there are said to love it.

I suspect most of them hate the rest of New York.

Periodically they speak of secession.

It should really be part of New Jersey. Maybe it could be traded for a strip that ran from Weehawken to Jersey City.

[evil_synth]

When do you think the World's tallest building will be in New York again? New York had it for 40+ years, but now taller skyscrapers are rising up left and rights. The Tower in Dubai is est. at 2300 ft. When will the race end, or is this just the beginning of an era when 1000ft+ buildings will become common place, thus leaving famous buildings like the empire state building (now 9th tallest in the world) just average height? What can be considered truely t