Page 52 of 93 FirstFirst ... 24248495051525354555662 ... LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 1387

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #766

    Default

    The Beekman tower only became taller because the residents of the building behind it did not want the new building to directly abut their windows. They wanted a plaza in between. The only way to go was up, much to the dismay of other residents, specifically those in the Southbridge Towers. I'm still shocked we went from a 50 story building to one that is 876 feet.

    There is no situation like that here. And as long as they are height obsessed, you can forget about tall towers here. It was a bad move by Solow to lower the heights of the buildings already....he should have tried to hold out longer. There's no way he'll be able to raise them again without neighborhood furor. Frankly I wouldn't mind if Solow put off the project and waited to sell it to another developer who could possibly give us something better than a glassy BPC.

    On another note I wish the FDR would be demolished and replaced with a West Side Highway type road, at least to the QB bridge. The entire coast of Manhattan really should be lined with parkland.

  2. #767
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Yes it reaches for the sky but that all and its fine if its in a field of flatlands. But this isn't the plains, its a city with a myriad of skyscrapers that by virtue of their crowns, spires, slanted roofs gives the city emblems for which to identify it. What does it contribute to the skyline besides obstructing other much more nice scrapers and an attempt to plateau out the skyline??

    As far as a design, guys please its a black box there is not much to it. Well I guess some people are into boxes and all. But ultimately for me its a monolith that can be characterized as a simpleton, banal design and ultimately its biggest insult to NYC- OBTRUSIVE. It is built in the worst possible spot for a tower of its bland design. TWT is a grotesque example of a tower that has no disregard for the existing skyline. I mean, specially at night from Queens you see the midtowns tower that light up being literally blacked out by this monstrosity.

    Now this con-ed site should not do what TWT did. It should contribute a good architectural design that weaves it into the existing skyline not block it. Zoning laws should be put in place for waterfront areas to preserve the skyline views.

  3. #768
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Putting aside subjective design issues on what makes a building attractive or iconic, can you please explain to me (as I've already asked you) what "great Midtown skyscrapers" will be blocked by Solow's plans?

  4. #769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117 View Post
    The Beekman tower only became taller because the residents of the building behind it did not want the new building to directly abut their windows. They wanted a plaza in between. The only way to go was up, much to the dismay of other residents, specifically those in the Southbridge Towers. I'm still shocked we went from a 50 story building to one that is 876 feet.

    There is no situation like that here.
    That's the very definition of NIMBYism, and its exactly what these people don't want here. They fear these buildings will block views of the river, even from street level, even though those street level views are blocked today (by the plant).


    And as long as they are height obsessed, you can forget about tall towers here. It was a bad move by Solow to lower the heights of the buildings already....he should have tried to hold out longer.
    I think there's a good chance that if he went for half the amount of towers in exchange for increased height and more open space, he could get support. I think there are community mouthpieces involved that don't speak for everyone. There are reasonable people everywhere, and I think that with a little more talking, a balance can be reached.

  5. #770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Yes it reaches for the sky but that all and its fine if its in a field of flatlands. But this isn't the plains, its a city with a myriad of skyscrapers that by virtue of their crowns, spires, slanted roofs gives the city emblems for which to identify it. What does it contribute to the skyline besides obstructing other much more nice scrapers and an attempt to plateau out the skyline?? As far as a design, guys please its a black box there is not much to it.
    Exactly. There's no pretense to it. Its just a beautiful, soaring skyscraper. The way skyscrapers are meant to be. Contrary to popular belief, it does contribute to the skyline. It joins the Citicorp Center in adding a peak to what is otherwise a very flat and evened out skyline...





  6. #771

    Default

    Are non-community members allowed at those meetings? I would love to attend one of them, or possibly know that WNY sent a well-prepared representative there. I could just imagine standing there, making a case for city improvement and that added height. I could also see them making remarks about me living in the suburbs and having no interest nor knowledge of the area besides seeing "pretty buildings" on the skyline, and that I am ignorant of their community. Then I see myself replying that they are the ignorant of the community of the NYC as a whole, and that they want to block a project that would truly aid the city just because it is in their immediate vicinity. I would add that some of their suggestions do seem sensible, but others, like height limitations, are ridiculous and would even be able to prove to them that they are unable to tell the difference between a 700 and 850-footer. I would also bring up the issue that their own highrise projects once invaded the lowrise community that existed there before.

    That would be pretty awesome.

  7. #772
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    And the nighttime view is nothing to sneeze at either:

    http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/sh...&postcount=286

  8. #773

    Default

    We're going to get another one on the east side anyway. It probably won't be as tall as TWT, but it should be taller than the UN.

    http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7822

  9. #774

    Default

    is this not already one of the DENSEST parts of Manhattan?

  10. #775
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    anyone can go to a open community board meeting, however when its just the commitee itself, its usually closed door.

    Ive attened hundreds of these, they are eye openers

  11. #776

    Default

    I found this pic on flickr... http://flickr.com/photos/82426448@N00/

    Now what will be blocked in this photo? A sliver of the ESB, yes, but the hulking Corinthian already takes care of that from most angles. The UN already effectively blocks Chrysler.



    Drab brick backround buildings will soon be blocked by modern, glassy high rises. It's just the details we wait for. The two in the foreground await this development...haha

  12. #777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6 View Post
    anyone can go to a open community board meeting, however when its just the commitee itself, its usually closed door.

    Ive attened hundreds of these, they are eye openers
    How do you know when and where they happen?

    We really need to send our reps to those. Nimbys are going to hate our asses for it (and probably spam us with viruses or something, those guys really know how to hate), but we don't have to tell them where we're from, do we?

    At least it would be more productive than simply discussing the projects on this board with individuals whose viewpoint is pretty much already very similar.

  13. #778
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Community board meetings (especially the more important ones on developments like this, the Trump Soho Tower, and Atlantic Yards) are usually announced publicly. Got to scour those newspaper articles, or probably just the websites of the community boards.

    I don't know why you'd be worried about retribution. This is an anonymous forum, for the most part. If you went to one, there's no law that says you have to give them your full legal name, address, etc. Make up something just to get a chance to speak, that's all. If there's another one before the summer ends, I'll join you. I'd love to "enlighten" some of these morons.

  14. #779
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Manhattan Community Board List: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb_manhattan.shtml

    Manhattan Community Board 6
    Stuyvesant Town, Tudor City, Turtle Bay, Peter Cooper Village, Murray Hill, Gramercy Park, Kips Bay, Sutton Place
    866 UN Plaza, Suite 308
    New York, NY 10017

    Phone: 212.319.3750
    Fax: 212.319.3772

    Email: mn06@cb.nyc.gov
    Website: www.cb6mnyc.org

    Chair: Ms. Carol Schachter
    District Manager: Ms. Toni Carlina
    Board Meeting: Second Wednesday
    Cabinet Meeting: Fourth Thursday

    From the CB6 website it looks like the last "Land Use Committee" meeting on the Con Ed site was last Wednesday (8/02/06).

    August is always a slow month at CBs. So far no schedule posted for September.

    Check the CB6 website for meetings & info

  15. #780
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
    Exactly. There's no pretense to it. Its just a beautiful, soaring skyscraper. The way skyscrapers are meant to be. Contrary to popular belief, it does contribute to the skyline. It joins the Citicorp Center in adding a peak to what is otherwise a very flat and evened out skyline...

    http://www.queenswest.com/neighborho...?display=small


    http://www.queenswest.com/eastcoast/...?display=small

    I guess we are at odds in scraper taste. I hardly considers this flat top scraper a peak even if it appears to be taller due to proximity. The farther away you get the more it flattens out the skyline.

    Hopefully none of the Con Ed site buildings will look nothing like it.

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