Reply With Quotesome very good stuff there. I think there is a lifetime of architectural photography in London.
Absolutely. Amazing.
Thanks for all your hard work in putting this together Alonzo! It's awesome!
some very good stuff there. I think there is a lifetime of architectural photography in London.
Oh, that is pretty. I have to get to London one of these days.
You and me both. I would love to go to London some day.
That's a majestic shot.
For those who have not been, London and Paris are the best cities in the world. NY, in my opinion, is number 3.
In fact, even moreso than Paris, London is pristine. It's so well taken care of and manicured. For those on this forum who oppose construction of sites like this because it will take away their market and because they like grit in NY, they would not like London. It would be too beautiful for them.
LL, to be fair, the rather small core of Paris (about 18% larger than Manhattan) is phenomenal, but the surrounding area where 80% of the Ile-de-France (Paris metro area) population live is one of the most glaring examples of failed assimilation and urban development in the developed world. Paris is almost imprisoned by commie-block "suburbs" of disenfranchised, undereducated and angry people -- a train ride into the city leaves you very nervous about where you're going!
For better or worse, any accounting of Paris should take into account the grittier elements in conjunction with the fairy-tale city center. It actually is an interesting sociological and historical issue problem that postwar Europe, paralyzed to this day by post-colonial guilt, has, in attempting to alleviate problems in its former territories, brought so many of those very problems home. But yes, the core of Paris is enchanting.
I agree, Stroika. That's why I said: "In fact, even moreso than Paris, London is pristine."
OK, time to can the routine. No, really.. For those on this forum who oppose construction of sites like this because it will take away their market and because they like grit in NY, they would not like London. It would be too beautiful for them.
There are legitimate issues in Manhattan regarding the loss of needed businesses to new buildings which break apart a neighborhood's retail diversity.
Development is great, clearly it's necessary for the city to continue...but while you prefer anything that is shiny and new, I take into account the whole picture, including how it is to actually LIVE in these neighborhoods when the glass lobbies with nothing but ATMS take over block after block. It's HOW you develop a block, not just that you develop it at all. Bakeries, restaurants, services like laundromats, corner stores, hardware stores, independent coffee shops...these are obliterated, and for what? So you can see 30 stories of mediocre glass, straight up, which does nothing for the community at street level? What's the point? So you can declare every single block sufficiently filling it's air envelope with shiny sterility, to meet some one-dimensional (and inaccurate) image of London you've cultivated in your brain?
We love London. It's beautiful, but like every city it has its share of crap too. The ironic thing here, londonlawyer, is that NYC won't be made more like London by tearing down every low rise block full of small businesses. It will become less like London. Big glass lobbies without many restaurants, just ATMs and drugstores, is hardly a charming London-esque experience.
Simple experiment for you, LL: look at which neighborhoods have a dynamic, pumping street life and which neighborhoods don't. In support of everything I've said, the quality of streetlife and diversity of retail seem to be directly and inversely related to how many sterile new glass lobbies have inserted themselves into the scene. Simple solution: design the bases differently than the current trend. Then I will have no problem. I love skyscrapers, but city life happens at street level and needs to be taken into account at the bases of these new buildings.
London has lots of pubs, restaurants, boutiques, and interesting shops. We're losing more of ours every single day because of a lack of attention to the issues some of us on this forum try to call attention to. There is no need to ridicule certain forum members because we have a more nuanced view of what makes a city a truly great place to live.
I couldn't have said it better!
I don't think any of us has a problem with building something nice here-
We agree that it's visually lacking as is -BUT
it's more a fact of WHAT they want to build here, and what we will LOSE because it.
And ..I've been to London, while nice -it too has its fair share of "POM"
Amigo,Originally Posted by MidtownGuy
Do you seriously think I would ridicule you?
We disagree regarding the value of certain slummy looking blocks like the one on 9th Avenue as one of many examples. I would not care if my favorite store in the world were located there. I want it gone because it looks like sh..it, and makes the city look like crap.
as a Londoner I have to agree that showing a crappy side of Manhattan and a gorgeous side of London isnt entirely fair. London has a great deal of postwar landscaping too I may add, but like NYC, that adds to the mix, and the edge (most of the hippest streetscapes, and in high demand with artists, students, and buyers, are in these areas). And of course NYC is utterly beautiful and majestic in many a corner or vista, just look at the skyline.
I think the best thing that can be said about London is that the ugly areas are exciting, accessible, safe and stimulating despite, as opposed to being blank, socially ghettoised or becoming no-go areas.
Last edited by zupermaus; November 19th, 2009 at 03:39 PM.
And the Parisian banlieues - look again, its not all as first appears - the urban diversity of Paris is amazing outside the Hausmannian centre.
(new ecocity development):
...the area before, that was razed to the ground:
Last edited by zupermaus; November 19th, 2009 at 03:52 PM.
^gorgeous!
I think this can be fairly said of NYC in 2009 as well. Of course there are a few rough neighborhods...but I can hop on the subway and get off somewhere in Queens, or Brooklyn or the Bronx, to find utterly stimulating and safe neighborhoods. Racially diverse, full of various cultures, etc. You'll find charming architecture throughout the boroughs as well as neighborhoods bursting with flavor.I think the best thing that can be said about London is that the ugly areas are exciting, accessible, safe and stimulating despite, as opposed to being blank, socially ghettoised or becoming no-go areas.
I don't know if you've ever gotten off the R train on Steinway in Queens and walked through Astoria...but if you do, you will find a mind boggling mix of people, cultures, stores, and structures. Ditto dozens of other neighborhoods across the city. Jackson Heights (Little India), Little Morocco, Flushing (NYC's second Chinatown, exploding with Asian culture)...Brownstone Brooklyn, the Russian neighborhoods along the sea... it's simply endless. I was in Washington Heights yesterday...nice architecture and sizzling hot Latino culture.
The thing that makes me sad is that so many European tourists insufficiently explore these areas, they only see the core (Manhattan). This is partially because of a lack of time. After all, Manhattan is a huge bite to chew on in a week or so..and if they do venture to other boroughs, it was a stroll down 1 avenue or two and then back on the subway to Manhattan, so it's hit or miss whether they actually saw the good stuff. NYC is just so huge, dense, and safe at the same time.
I'm sorry for being long winded but I hope I can inspire our European friends to broaden and update their idea of New York City beyond the reputation of skyscraper island surrounded by a ring of crime-ridden urban jungle.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks