problematic of ny city planning/architecture
I think the whole nature of the debate up above, about the downzoning of mid-blocks and the quest to preserve certain sites (such as these grand-dame hotels) speaks to two fundamental problems that grip NY architecture and urban planning... problems that have been solved in Europe, but only recently:
1) ZONING is not PLANNING: you can down-zone or up zone or whatever, but in the end with no plan all you can do is "discourage"... that means developers can still do things that make them a profit (like the im pei project) even if it is so obviously not a part of the intent. Things like landmark designation aren't much better because they are merely a more powerful "discouragement." If used too liberally in areas that aren't deserving of "landmarking" necessarily, landmark status will either a) discourage investment or b) provoke a well-deserved back-lash. What the city needs to do, in certain cases (i still like the flexibility zoning provides, by and large) is come out and say exactly what it wants. It did so, almost perfectly, along the high-line, and look what happened.
2) In terms of what the city might want... the other thing it has not learned is out to integrate old and new in the same building. While I love some of these old hotels, I think (as the Hearst and Porter House and vornado tower just north of rock center and the foster proposal on madison all demonstrate) that it is possible to combine old and new in very innovative ways. They do this in Europe all the time, because they realized they had to provide modern office space while preserving their old fabric. In nyc this should be even easier, since a certain degree of height is OK... so what would be wrong with preserving the base/exterior/lobbies of these old hotels and very skillfully (aka not gene kaufman or costas) adding to the top?
The 60s to the 90s was decades, not years.Originally Posted by ASchwarz
Post the data. Make sure to factor in post WWII public housing projects, which we all love today. And note how much construction was done in other decades on undeveloped rural land. Also include office and hotel space added.In every other decade, there was far more growth. I have data on housing permits (which I am happy to post) and know that, in historical terms, we are not building much.
All I want to say that it is sad to see these 3 hotels (Drake, Pennsylvania and Roosevelt) gone. And they are not " another ugly" masonry building in my mind.
Last edited by JohnFlint1985; July 11th, 2007 at 04:12 PM.
This is not decay with all due respect. it is quite far from it. I am for development -- but with taste and style, not just whatever as long as it is big and shiny.
As promised, the attached shows that the alleged NYC residental boom is just exaggerated NIMBY posturing. We are doing fine, but we need to to better.
See page 12:
http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/...orts/07HSR.pdf
We are building less than half the housing we built in the early 60's. Until we are building something approaching 70,000 units annually, we are not in a boom by historic standards.
That's right. Some of us have brains, not just knee-jerk reflexes.This is not decay with all due respect. it is quite far from it. I am for development -- but with taste and style, not just whatever as long as it is big and shiny.
Ashwarz:Bullocks. You don't have to try to understand it, because I can't think of anyone on this forum with that opinion. You're just talking out of your butthole.I guess some hate development whatever the site. People are entitled to their opinions, but this worldview is something I will never understand,
Extrapolating for data from 45 years ago, when land availability was vastly different than today, is ridiculous.
Look at contemporary comparisons, when conditions are comparable.
1996 - 7118
2006 - 23,768
Manhattan:
1996 - 1582
2006 - 5199
I posted a reply on Roosevelt hotel thread so I don't want to repeat myself. But one thing is obvious -- we are risking to loose something that is making this city so charming -- its old aroma. Like an old wine it gets better with age and only true connoisseurs can understand it -- so lets not throw it out.
It's pathetic to watch, because it is so damned shortsighted. There are so many places to develop, it's not like preserving these old gems will harm the city's future or deprive it of revenue like people on this forum are saying. If these are off limits, the development WILL STILL HAPPEN, but in areas that actually need it. Believe me, developers aren't going to stop building if the need is there and there's money to be made.
The Drake is being demolished as we speak, so this one is a goner.
Words of a true New Yorker
<sigh!> This city is full of scumbag developers and spineless oblivious politicians...uneffingbelivable! They just dont realize that the historical character of NYC one of the things that makes New York the great city people wanna be in. Actually, they do realize but it is this disgusting "win at all cost" mentality that has devoured much of this city's past historical texture.
True
I've danced this dance on several occasions already.
Two things you didn't take into account with that response:
Our previous population peak was almost precisely at the same time that new construction peaked. It makes sense to compare two historical periods where several factors coincide. The early 90s do not compare that readily to the 2000s.
Land availability has been a problem for much longer than 45 years. In fact, countless real estate entrepreneurs made their entire fortunes just by speculating on rising land values. John Jacob Astor did it way back in the mid 19th century.
^
Half of Kings County was rural after WWI. The entire neighborhood I grew up in was built on undeveloped wetlands in the 50sw and 60s.Land availability has been a problem for much longer than 45 years.
What brought this about is whether or not NYC is in a building boom.
Housing starts are at their highest levels in over 30 years.
Record prices are being paid for property.
There are several huge projects in the works:
Atlantic Yards
WTC
Westside railyards
Penn Sta.
Do you think we are experiencing a building boom?
Or should we just compare everything to the first decades of the 20th century, when both building and population growth were unprecedented, and dismiss every other period.
Very expensive to do however. The city should provide some kind of bonus so this could happen more. Developers now are basically penalized in lossed square footage by preserving a building. The building that is being demolished at 105 Washington is a perfect example. The city would be better off just letting him add the sq. footage to the tower without demolition.
Actually - interesting idea. Like this building in Upper Harlem on Broadway, forgot the number, the facade is old, but on top there is a new addition. Combination of old and new -- nice idea.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks