Page 47 of 93 FirstFirst ... 3743444546474849505157 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 705 of 1387

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #691

    Default

    Ok get in a developer with a grand idea....it could include the frigginest tallest building in the world for all I care....but letīs hear something about building a real piece of NYC. They ACTUALLY were talking about towers around an ICE SKATING RINK....like itīs 1968 and this is Toronto or something. Iīm hearing strains of "Laraīs Theme".

  2. #692

    Default

    I'm not sure why the idea of a skating rink has you so apopleptic, Fabrizio. It works splendidly at Rockefeller Center--so much so that one was set up with great success at Bryant Park this past winter as well. I'm more concerned that nothing happens at this site until 2035 than I am about the prospect of some frolicking ice skaters.

  3. #693

    Default

    ^ He's not apoplectically against it; he just thinks it's now a ho-hum idea.

    It's a ho-hum idea.

  4. #694

    Default Thin ice

    Quote Originally Posted by JD
    I'm more concerned that nothing happens at this site until 2035 than I am about the prospect of some frolicking ice skaters.
    I agree!


    This quote by Ablarc is more to the point!
    http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/sh...postcount=1529
    Last edited by infoshare; June 25th, 2006 at 03:17 PM.

  5. #695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infoshare
    I agree!
    Well, of course! But it's not either/or: either build a skating rink or wait 35 years.

    I agree with Fabrizio that folks with imagination can come up with something better (heck, even I can do that ).

  6. #696

  7. #697

    Default

    Empty paved areas, except for a couple. There's something to be learned from that.

    Public space in this country is overdesigned.

    Or maybe we Americans need that; maybe we don't know how to use an empty space.

    Sorry about that, if it's true. Sorry we spend so much on overbuilding, if it's not true.

  8. #698
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krulltime
    ...and meanwhile Chicago builts without any height restrictions... what is going on with NYC?
    Two cities heading in the opposite direction. One is gaining appreciation for skyscrapers, the other hates them and see them as something bad. Do I need to tell you which is city is which?

    Speaking of Chicago, here are a few quotes from a Washington Post article posted over at the Chicago Reaching for the Sky thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Washington Post
    "Out my window there are two, three, four, five new high-rises under construction or just completed in the last year and a half, and they've just announced another 80-story building," said Jim Fenters, who has lived on the 51st floor of a 54-story building overlooking Grant Park since 1979. "It's just remarkable what's happened here."

    Projects that would be headline news in other cities go all but unnoticed.

    "The Waterview Tower, that project is 1,047 feet, taller than the Chrysler Building," Blair Kamin, the Chicago Tribune's Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic, said of one building under construction. "In any other city there would be endless conversations, (but) here a 1,000-foot tower is `Ho-hum, how are the Cubs doing?'"
    Quote Originally Posted by Washington Post
    "I remember at least two (planning and development) staff members saying `Can't you make it taller? We really would like it taller,'" Chicago architect David Haymes says about discussions with the city for a planned condominium tower.
    Quote Originally Posted by Washington Post
    The change makes sense, says planning commissioner Lori Healey. In exchange for allowing developers to go higher _ where they get eyepopping views that allow them to charge huge price tags _ the city gets buildings that are a lot smaller at their base, allowing more open space and light than in cities crammed with shorter, wider buildings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Washington Post
    Still, more than a century after the world's first skyscraper _ the nine-story Home Insurance Building _ went up in 1885, Chicagoans remain enamored with tall buildings.
    "Chicagoans live and breathe high-rises both within the profession and within the city," said David Scott, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, an international nonprofit organization based in Chicago.

  9. #699

    Default

    Yes, antinimby, but don't you know that's INFANTILE? I bet you still suck your thumb, and you know what that stands for...PENIS ENVY.

  10. #700

    Default

    ^ Wrong side of the bed.

  11. #701
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Penis envy...phallic symbols, all descriptions used to denigrate ambitious and tall projects. There's nothing wrong with the drive to build tall buildings in a city like New York or Chicago.

    Especially on the east side of Manhattan. In Williamsburgh I can see a reason for opposition but the area is fit for it. People there just don't want their views cut off, its hardly for the common good.
    Last edited by TonyO; June 26th, 2006 at 09:04 AM.

  12. #702
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    its the 9/11 effect, if the Sears Tower was/is hit chicago would act different believe me.

  13. #703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6
    its the 9/11 effect, if the Sears Tower was/is hit chicago would act different believe me.
    I strongly disagree. I think if the Sears Tower was hit a taller tower would be halfway up already. The argument here isn't about the potential of being a terrorist target, but rather a loss of river views and the appearance of shadows for residents. In other words, personal concerns of about 8,000 people are affecting this project, not the other 8,000,000 NYers who were also there on 9/11 and who could care less about the height of this project.

  14. #704
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117
    I strongly disagree. I think if the Sears Tower was hit a taller tower would be halfway up already. The argument here isn't about the potential of being a terrorist target, but rather a loss of river views and the appearance of shadows for residents. In other words, personal concerns of about 8,000 people are affecting this project rather than all 8,000,000 NYers which is the way it should be.
    I think the lack of pushing forward from groups/individuals other than the developer on these tall developments is what is different since 9/11. In Chicago there are government officials actively seeking taller developments. Here they are not, for whatever reason, but I think it does have to do with 9/11.

  15. #705
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Let's not forget the Freedom Tower. Sure, you can say it has been mired in delays stemming from security concerns, but the bottom line is that politicians here want to see it built, as do the developers of the WTC site. The fact that it's taking a long time is not unique to this building; there have been numerous proposals in Chicago's past for super-tall buildings that have been shot down or taken years to approve. Leaving aside the Freedom Tower, there are a few other general observations I'd like to point out. Firstly, it simply costs less to build in Chicago, so getting financing for a supertall is easier. Secondly, zoning seems to be a less complex issue there, as far as putting together air rights and getting community approval. It helps when you have a mayor who's enthusiastic about it. I don't think Bloomberg gives a damn one way or another. Thirdly, super-tall building seems to be cyclical, for one reason or another. Chicago's in the midst of one right now, mainly due to the real estate boom (none of these new projects are commercial, by the way). Let's see how many of these proposals (and how many new ones) are realized when the housing boom winds down and Daley finishes up his tenure.

Similar Threads

  1. Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2014, 05:21 PM
  2. Pier 57 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: December 17th, 2013, 04:00 PM
  3. Pier 45 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 10th, 2012, 10:58 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 04:09 AM
  5. Third Avenue Bridge - Across Harlem River
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 10th, 2002, 06:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software