Reply With QuoteIt's surprising how many NYC buildings are not landmarked. One of our posters (can't remember which) made a partial list. It's shocking, really.
I am scratching my head over this one. I would have imagined that one of these buildings are landmarked, particularly the one that faces GCT on Vanderbilt.
It's surprising how many NYC buildings are not landmarked. One of our posters (can't remember which) made a partial list. It's shocking, really.
So unnecessary. There are hundreds if not thousands of sites that need development more than that block. Unforunately, developers and greed have little knowledge or care about that.
There are very few designated landmark buildings in the vicinity of GCT - Chrysler, Mobil, Chanin, Bowery Savings, NY Central (Helmsley), Waldorf Astoria, French. Maybe a couple of others.Originally Posted by ramvid01
No serious attempt was made to create a "Terminal City" historic district, which is amazing, since the area had a unified design and purpose. I guess the battle over GCT itself made everyone feel lucky to at least get that.
While the 1929 Warren & Westmore NY Central building is landmarked, the 1925 Postum Building across the street is not.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=park+...6.63,,0,-13.59
Sad. That we have to lose these. You would think that Altria building would come down first. I think the Roosevelt Hotel is next on the chopping block.
But interesting how developers and the city have somewhat reversed their positions on design and height since the 80's and 90's. They are almost embraced now. Perhaps this is a response to the emerging competitiors in Asia and internet outlets like these. Now, not only nimby's who attend community board meetings have the voice of the public.
I'm assuming this site will tap into some of those unused air rights from Grand Central.
Just two decades ago the city looked unfavorably upon the bulk and height of the proposed 1.4 MSF, 1,040 foot Travelstead Tower at 383 Madison and denied the air rights transfer.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A967958260
"Justice Nardelli also found the city had "valid reasons" for denying the transfer because it would "unduly increase the bulk, density of population and intensity of use" in the area and have "unmitigable adverse environmental impacts" and because the program to maintain the landmark, which would be part of the arrangement, was "insufficient."
This city is stupid.
Over at SSP, I find interesting how many of the numbskull NY forumers are actually cheering for this while the pro-preservation ones are actually from elsewhere in the country.
There's an existing thread on the plan to rezone parts Midtown.
“This is something that Bloomberg would like to finish before leaving office,” said a leading business official who was told about the plan but asked not to be identified because its specifics have yet to be formally proposed.
“This would be a linchpin of his legacy.”
meh...“In order for the city to be competitive globally, we need a lot more new construction,” said Robert Knakal, chairman of Massey Knakal Realty Services. “If you look at the skyline of New York compared to some other cities, you see we are not what we once were.”
Well then they probably shouldn't have filled 2/3rds of the the skyline with boring glass boxes and useless lowrises, while demolishing buildings that deserved to be landmarked. There would be a totally different ball game if I had a say over what went up on the island.
^ So very true.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... I've heard talk of "spectacular" proposals before....
In that case that building turned out to be simply not bad; I most certainly do not think my occular perceptions when I will look into that location (based on renderings) of the skyline has been given a "gift".
But in this case, any attempt to make something "spectacular" by todays [low] standards in the presence of the emblem of architectural perfection known as the Chrysler Building is gonna look as paltry, out of place and pathetic as 60 Wall St interloping between 40 Wall St and 70 Pine St.
Last edited by TREPYE; June 6th, 2012 at 02:38 PM.
This one really is a punch to the gut. These old masonry buildings give New York its "New York"-ness -- certainly the likes of One Chase Manhattan Plaza don't do that.
Instead of a handsome, textured, historic building, we'll now have another banal box of glass-covered Modernism -- another little piece of Chongqing or Abu Dhabi or Canary Wharf next to Grand Central.
It really is time the city landmarked all pre-war buildings. We'll never have anything like them again. Meanwhile, there are Modernist slabs, housing projects and surface lots aplenty -- all of which should be where zoning focuses developers' "animal spirits." This is a question of the city's identity, and residents' quality of life.
Instead, the Real Estate Board of Dicks or whatever it's called wants to gut the Landmarks law. I really don't see how it prevents them from doing whatever they want now; what we need is greater protection of pre-wars, not less.
"If the intent of Bloomberg's midtown rezoning is for NYC to create globally competitive building stock through SF incentives, it is also going to have to address the usability of that space.
SL Green looks poised to be the first guinea pig of this upcoming rezoning..."
http://blog.cubedadvisory.com/2012_06_01_archive.html
6sqft
New 65-Story Tower Near Grand Central to Stand Taller Than the Chrysler Building
Posted On Fri, May 30, 2014 12:00 pm By Aisha Carter
Read article and another large rendering here: http://www.6sqft.com/new-65-story-to...sler-building/
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks