Page 50 of 93 FirstFirst ... 4046474849505152535460 ... LastLast
Results 736 to 750 of 1385

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #736
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    A reduction of 200 feet is what Solow proposed. They want more reduction. Heights of 0 would be best in their opinion.
    Last edited by antinimby; June 27th, 2006 at 04:34 PM.

  2. #737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby
    ...
    Heck, why weren't these NIMBY's fighting to save the old powerplant?
    They only cared about the 800 foot towers.
    These modern day NIMBYs do not have preservation at heart.
    I totally agree with you. This old plant was beautiful. Where were these wankers when Solow tore it down? Also, why don't these weiners make some good use of themselves and protest the detruction of the townhouses on 56th Street, the Drake, etc.? These wankers are full of it!

  3. #738
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    I was only objecting to the blanket statement that implied community involvement was a failure in New York. Like it or not, the city would be worse off if developers had a free hand.
    It was only blanket because you selected it out of the rest of the post.

    We've gone back and forth many times about the role of the community with respect to keeping developers on their toes. You know I don't condone letting anything, be it developers, NIMBYs or politicians, go unchecked.
    There is probably a better solution out there, but the current system we have now definitely needs some adjustments.

  4. #739
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer
    I totally agree with you. This old plant was beautiful. Where were these wankers when Solow tore it down? Also, why don't these weiners make some good use of themselves and protest the detruction of the townhouses on 56th Street, the Drake, etc.? These wankers are full of it!
    That's exactly what I mean by the system we have needs adjusting. There are nice old buildings that are getting torn down and no one does anything about it (other than a few wirednewyork forum members making some noise). Yet, when something nice is propose for an empty parking lot, people fight it. You can't tell me this is the best for the city.

  5. #740
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer
    Also, why don't these weiners make some good use of themselves and protest the detruction of the townhouses on 56th Street, the Drake, etc.? These wankers are full of it!
    56th street is not Tudor City's backyard.

  6. #741

    Default

    Good one! Clearly though, these wankers don't care about the city as a hole. They care only about their maggot strewn, filthy 4 block area.

  7. #742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby
    It was only blanket because you selected it out of the rest of the post.
    I can only respond to what you write, not what you mean. Don't tell me I took it out of context. Your post was mostly concerned with the history of community opposition, and I responded in a historical context.

    I qualified my opposition to the statement with...
    I agree with the point that community opposition is often directed in the wrong direction, but I must take issue with this...

  8. #743

    Default

    So can we agree the problem isn't community involvement but stupid community involvement?

    Community should be involved but not to the extent of shooting itself in the foot --as it's presently in the process of doing with its idiotic height obsession. The result will be fat, graceless buildings and more pervasive shadows.

  9. #744
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    ^ I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    I can only respond to what you write, not what you mean. Don't tell me I took it out of context. Your post was mostly concerned with the history of community opposition, and I responded in a historical context.
    Yes but history is a long time. I was talking about more recent history.

  10. #745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc
    So can we agree the problem isn't community involvement but stupid community involvement?
    That's exactly the problem, but I don't have an answer.

    Removing community involvement would create a vacuum, since there is little city mechanism outside of hiistoric districts and general zoning to establish sound development guidelines.

    It's hard to get people to understand that the sun moves, and a narrow shadow passes more quickly than a bulky one.

  11. #746

    Default

    It's a question of education.

    Problem is, many community activists can't be educated.

    You can't learn if you already know everything.

  12. #747
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    195

    Default

    What is the demographic of people who attend these meetings? I imagine it must be mostly senior citizens and the elderly. If so, it's just a matter of time before their numbers slowly dwindle in this town (to think very morbidly on how to solve the Nimby problem).

  13. #748
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Yes but there's always a fresh crop coming up. If you want to see the effects of unchecked development, take a look across the Hudson at Newport/Pavonia in JC.

  14. #749
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    I think developers (or the people that pitch their projects for them) should make it a priority to explain certan logical realities of a development before any questions are raised. Some people are just ignorant, and perceive height as unequivocally bad. Is it so hard to understand the concept that a taller, slimmer building will take up less land area, therefore leaving more space for parkland and open areas? Is it a myth that bulkier buildings block more of the sun, especially when it's low in the sky (near sunrise and sunset)? Common sense (with a little help from outside sources) goes a long way towards self-enlightenment.

  15. #750

    Default

    ^^That assumes that some peoples opposition is due to an insufficent grasp of the facts and not a completly ulterior motive.

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