Page 135 of 176 FirstFirst ... 3585125131132133134135136137138139145 ... LastLast
Results 2,011 to 2,025 of 2636

Thread: New Penn Station (Moynihan Station)

  1. #2011
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    It's hard to take this rendering seriously since it probably bears little resemblance to whatever is on the boards at Vornado, but I must say that I'm pretty underwhelmed by all of this. The replacement for 2 Penn, or recladding, doesn't look a whole lot better, and as for Moynihan East, I was expecting something much more inspiring.

    The only building that really interests me is the tall office tower to the immediate East of 1 Penn. I love the cuts and angles on this thing, and if the building ever crossed over into reality I would hope it came clad in dark granite.

    Overall, I must say that I disagree with how the tide has turned away from having twin supertalls in favor of distributing air rights all around. I was really hoping for some eye popping height, and for a time it looked like Vornado was considering a tower at least as tall as the Empire State Building. I for one hope that the tide turns back in favor of that kind of plan.

  2. #2012
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Glass boxes all around. Why should we be surprised?

    And to think that some people on the Hotel Penn thread were na´ve enough to think that we would be getting sexy, cutting-edge, world-class architecture.

    Yeah, right. More like Houston 1980 architecture.

    The Hotel Penn even in its current rundown state has more character than all of those glass monoliths combined.

  3. #2013

    Default Mediocrity is the worst death

    All very true, antinimby. And the loss of the ESB-height buildings in favor of "distributing" the air rights is extremely unfortunate -- reminds me of the troubles at Solow's Con Ed site: He too wanted/wants to build tall and ambitiously (something rare enough for a developer), but Garodnick and the geezers killed that.

    If the city and its developers really want to tear down Gotham City to build as many 35-story glass boxes as Manhattan will hold, why don't they suck it up and say so openly to the public? And if they think the public wouldn't like to hear that -- or if they themselves don't want to hear that -- then why is that the "vision" that's being forced on us all?

  4. #2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Glass boxes all around. Why should we be surprised?

    And to think that some people on the Hotel Penn thread were na´ve enough to think that we would be getting sexy, cutting-edge, world-class architecture.
    These are all obviously placeholders. They are not architectural renderings.

  5. #2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    If the city and its developers really want to tear down Gotham City to build as many 35-story glass boxes as Manhattan will hold, why don't they suck it up and say so openly to the public?
    98% of people could care less about specific heights, even myself included.

    Of course we need tall buildings, but it makes little difference if you have (for example) 7 million square feet in two 1,300 foot towers, or 7 million square feet in four 900-1,100 foot towers, which is basically the scenario here.

    I don't know what you mean by "35-story glass boxes".

    Regarding height: Three of the four placeholders in the picture are taller than One Penn Plaza. They are all definitely north of 800 feet, and would rank among the city's tallest. One is definitely north of 1,000 feet.

    Regarding glass boxes: There are no released architectural designs. I would imagine office buildings would have glass, but where on earth are there office towers u/c without glass skins or boxy floorplans? Obviously tenants want glass buildings with roughly rectangular layouts.

    If you really think more companies would prefer new construction masonry office buildings with nontraditional layouts, then maybe get into the business and try and sell your ideas.

  6. #2016

    Default

    Ugh. I don't have time to get into a drawn-out argument about this, but here's my one and only response for the time being: The assertion that "98% of people could care less about specific heights" is both a red herring and untrue.

    It is a red herring because on many matters it doesn't really matter what most people think. Most people thought the Iraq war was a good idea (before it happened). Most people thought the destruction of Penn Station in the first place was a good idea. Once again, they thought this before it happened. Now look where we are. If you control people's access to novel ideas by, say, pressuring the media to support your war or by spending 50 years giving them International Style ugliness or 40-story buildings, many people won't understand there's any alternative.

    Now, here's why it's untrue that 98% of New Yorkers don't care about the height of buildings: At the end of the day, New York is in need of lots of office space. As odd as it may strike many of us, the city's stock of new, Class A office space is proportionally very small. Lots of new offices will have to be built in the years to come. We're likely in a recession now, and vacancies are at record low levels. They're only going to get lower when the economy picks up.

    Whether or not people think or care about the height of Building X (and I'll soon argue they do), people do care about quality of life. And "98%" of New Yorkers, I'm sure, enjoy being able to go to beautiful, chic, Old World-y cafes like those in the East or West Village. Oddly, many of us prefer those cafes on a Friday night to a groundfloor Qdoba or Chipolte in a brand new glass-box office building or condo. Already, though, well-detailed, personable older buildings are being knocked down. And as you note, companies don't want to build labor-intensive masonry structures.

    [I'm not saying all glass buildings are bad. I work in one of the typical 35-story glass boxes (and no I don't think there's any explanation needed for what I mean by "35-story glass boxes"; nonetheless, it's a building that is 35 stories tall, give or take 10 stories, is almost entirely glass, and from the Drake site to the West Side to the Con Ed site to the Diamond District to 7WTC and the FiDi to possibly 125th street is becoming predominant). I'm glad I don't work in a brownstone that lacks A/C. But I want to get the heck away from that building and others like it when I'm renting an apartment or going out for dinner. And, judging by the rising tide of discontent among people who claim, rightly or not, that New York is "losing its soul," many other people as well don't like eating or living in buildings like my office.]

    Now, if the new offices that the market is likely to demand are built in 400-, 500-, or even 600- and 700-foot buildings, a lot more of them will be required than if a few supertalls go up. Not only do I think that's less interesting for the skyline (granted, that's my personal opinion, but many other New Yorkers hold their skyline dear), but it also means structures like the Hotel Pennsylvania, Newsweek Building, etc., will be gutted or torn down.

    Even if people don't care about the skyline or whether there are some buildings going up that will finally be taller than the city's current height champ, which was built during the Depression for crying out loud, they do care when the elegant old buildings get torn down. It affects everyone's quality of life.

    Yes, there has been relatively muted protest about the Drake or the Hotel Pennsylvania. People here don't have much time for protest as a spectator sport, unless the building in question is in their backyard and they're unemployed, retired or in a housing project. However, that doesn't mean we want to see a Costas-designed Macklowe cash cow in place of the Drake. Don't many of us enjoy spending time in European cities? Maybe not 98% of us, but many of us? Again, I don't have a statistic, but I'm willing to say most people go to Paris not for La Defense or Rome for the area around DaVinci Airport, but for the old cities.

    New York's "old city" is spread throughout, and it's still in use. But that doesn't mean it should be torn down willy-nilly. Parts of what one might call the old city are landmarked. But those that aren't, due to the arbitrary vagaries of history, due to a location right outside an arbitrarily appointed historic zone, due to a lack of knowledge of the famous people who might've had a pint within, are treated like worthless stepchildren and given the heave-ho. That affects quality of life, especially when vast neglected stretches of the city (even in Midtown) would benefit greatly from a 35-story glass box or two.

    So, looking at the question of where on earth there is office space without anonymous glass skins or boxy footprints: The answer is everywhere. The eurozone is hardly the Third World, and London and Paris manage to get by while preserving older structures. So does New York, for that matter. Older buildings can be rehabbed. Sure, it doesn't make Steve Roth as rich as he might otherwise be, but it makes the rest of us a little happier. Isn't that a decent trade-off? Similarly, London and Paris manage to have tall buildings alongside preservation. Why can't there be a series of supertalls around MSG with the Hotel Penn left in place? It's one of the last remaining relics of an age when hotels like that were myriad. There's no reason to tear it down wantonly today when we'll only regret it tomorrow and can easily accommodate lots of other office buildings -- on land Vornado or Durst or whoever already owns -- today.

    As for your "why don't you become a developer, Mr. Smarty-Pants?" question: I don't think construction companies have any desire to understand that they can make more money on quality projects (like 15CPW). I think most developers are scoundrels, happy to get big bucks off of the crap they're selling Morgan Stanley, Rupert Murdoch or whomever else, and to lazily milk that model. Personally, I'm not going to be selling them any "ideas" any time soon because I am not in the construction or architecture business. I care about the city I live in, but I would never want to get into this as a business. It's for the interests of people like me -- people who live and work in the city, who want to enjoy life here -- that I think developers could be asked to submit to some regulation, just as bankers have to abide by the SEC's stringent rules or auditors by SarbOx not for their own benefit but for the good of shareholders, employees and whoever else. Rather than do something insane like repeal NAFTA, why not regulate developers who affect the quality of life of the rest of us more directly than most other professionals? After all, for 40 years they've been building a world for us that is hardly an untrammeled success.

    Finally, I realize these renderings for the MSG/Penn area are only placeholders. But because of the point you raise of developers not thinking they can make money on anything but cheap glass buildings, neither I nor you doubt that the final outcome will be much different.

  7. #2017

    Default

    Ah, the old 'Im not argueing but...' que massive post trick.

  8. #2018
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Stroika, it really is pointless arguing with ASchwarz on these issues. We've been down this road with him and others that think like him before, many times.

    There isn't a new project/proposal that ASchwarz isn't for. Everything and anything should be readily sacrificed for the sake of economic progress. He'd probably be for razing Grand Central, the Plaza, the Chrysler and anything dear to this city if someone were to propose to build a office tower in their place.

    He and others just don't see or don't believe in the value of history and legacy. If you don't have those two things, what is separating you from Houston?

    Every two weeks, we seem to get into this debate, over and over again. This topic is getting so tired.

  9. #2019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    There isn't a new project/proposal that ASchwarz isn't for.
    There are lots of projects I am against. Javits, Fulton Street Transit Center, the current Coney proposal, many others.

    How is this relevent to this thread, and specifically to a debate on four 1,000 foot buildings vs. two 1,300 foot buildings?

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    He and others just don't see or don't believe in the value of history and legacy. If you don't have those two things, what is separating you from Houston?
    So two 1,300 foot buildings means you "believe in the value of history and legacy" while four 800-1,200 foot buildings means you don't. Alrighty then.

    Or are you referring to the "history and legacy" of MSG V4?

  10. #2020
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Stop pretending. I know you know there is a difference.

    More smaller towers just means more sites will have to be razed. Does it take my explanation for you to get that?

    Besides, I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about your constant blind support for anything new but like I said, we've been down this road before so this is really all pointless.

  11. #2021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    Ugh. I don't have time to get into a drawn-out argument about this, .
    I'll definitely disagree on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    It is a red herring because on many matters it doesn't really matter what most people think.
    It doesn't matter what the city, state, developers and Moynihan advocates think, but it matters what you think? Seems a bit arrogant to claim to know better than everyone else. I am not even claiming a preference for the offsite plan; I would have no problem with your preference.

    I'm just wondering why you are making such misleading statements about height and design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    Most people thought the Iraq war was a good idea (before it happened). Most people thought the destruction of Penn Station in the first place was a good idea.
    What does your preference for two very tall buildings over four somwhat less tall buildings have to do with the Iraq War or the late Penn Station? If anything, wouldn't the offsite arrangement be more true to the original Penn?

    And since the developers and state agencies are claiming that your proposal is unworkable, I would say the burden of proof is on you to show why it makes more sense to have such an arrangement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    Now, here's why it's untrue that 98% of New Yorkers don't care about the height of buildings: At the end of the day, New York is in need of lots of office space. As odd as it may strike many of us, the city's stock of new, Class A office space is proportionally very small. Lots of new offices will have to be built in the years to come.
    This argument kills your main premise. You are claiming a preference for the two-tower scheme based on "need of lots of office space". Are you aware that there is absolutely no difference in the allowable square footage in the two schemes? They are the exact same. The space is just distributed differently.

    The offsite scheme is, however, easier and more responsive to market conditions, so it would deliver the office space much quicker and easier than under your scenario. And it's preferred by the developers, who are obviously the ones building this office space.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    And "98%" of New Yorkers, I'm sure, enjoy being able to go to beautiful, chic, Old World-y cafes like those in the East or West Village. Oddly, many of us prefer those cafes on a Friday night to a groundfloor Qdoba or Chipolte in a brand new glass-box office building or condo.
    This is your oddest argument.

    What do these statements have to do with the two schemes? How would there be a greater proliferation of "beautiful, chic Old World-y cafes" in the East Village or whatever? Two 1,300 foot towers support old world cafes, while four 800-1,200 foot towers don't? There's absolutely no connection between your statements and the two proposals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    [I'm not saying all glass buildings are bad. I work in one of the typical 35-story glass boxes (and no I don't think there's any explanation needed for what I mean by "35-story glass boxes"; nonetheless, it's a building that is 35 stories tall, give or take 10 stories, is almost entirely glass, and from the Drake site to the West Side to the Con Ed site to the Diamond District to 7WTC and the FiDi to possibly 125th street is becoming predominant).
    There are no architectural renderings for the buildings. What makes you think that the buildings would be less likely to be glass or boxy if they were 1,300 feet instead of 1,000 feet? If they were 1,500 feet, would they then be pointy with solid limestone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    but it also means structures like the Hotel Pennsylvania, Newsweek Building, etc., will be gutted or torn down.
    Again, irrelevent. Hotel Penn and the old Newsweek are both as-of-right, and their completion has nothing to do with a two-tower or four-tower scheme. Newsweek has nothing to do with air rights, FAR or density anyways, as it's a recladding (or am I missing something and is the building being expanded?).
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    ... they do care when the elegant old buildings get torn down. It affects everyone's quality of life.
    Please show me the "elegant old buildings" that are getting torn down in the offsite scheme, that would otherwise be saved in the onsite scheme. Considering the offsite zoning geographic air rights boundaries have not even been set, the only way you could claim this is if you had some insider knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    New York's "old city" is spread throughout, and it's still in use. But that doesn't mean it should be torn down willy-nilly.

    Older buildings can be rehabbed.
    Please show me what is being "torn down willy-nilly" in the offsite scheme. What specific buildings are you referring to? And don't give me the Drake or Penn or whatever. I am talking about the air rights from MSG and the two competing schemes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    As for your "why don't you become a developer, Mr. Smarty-Pants?" question: I don't think construction companies have any desire to understand that they can make more money on quality projects (like 15CPW). I think most developers are scoundrels, happy to get big bucks off of the crap they're selling Morgan Stanley, Rupert Murdoch or whomever else, and to lazily milk that model.
    Funny you bring up 15 CPW, and then rip on the money that built it. 15 CPW was financed by Goldman Sachs. Are they now no longer "scoundrels' because you like this one building?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    But because of the point you raise of developers not thinking they can make money on anything but cheap glass buildings, neither I nor you doubt that the final outcome will be much different.
    Glass is usually more expensive. Developers would actually save money by building your preferred 1980's-style postmodern structures. Something like Indiana limestone at 15 CPW costs more, but thats a rare exception. When developers get cheap they usually scrimp on the glass first. It's irrelevent anyways, because the new construction market for office space prefers glass. Until this changes, you will see glass, whether it's NYC, London, HK or wherever.

  12. #2022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Stop pretending. I know you know there is a difference.

    More smaller towers just means more sites will have to be razed. Does it take my explanation for you to get that?
    This slippery-slope argument makes no sense.

    So then why not just propose a single 2,600 foot tower? This would preserve even more sites than under your preferred scenario.

    Or why stop there? A 26,000 foot tower, and then even fewer sites will be razed.

    Or, better yet (using your logic), mandate all new construction on new landfill, so that nothing is ever razed.

  13. #2023
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Taking a point to an unrealistic extreme (26,000 feet?, mandate all new construction on landfill only?) just shows how silly and pointless debating with you can get.

  14. #2024

    Default

    Big Moynihan Station Plan Is Sputtering

    By CHARLES V. BAGLI
    Published: March 6, 2008

    In 1999, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan unveiled plans to transform the classical elements and monumental scale of the James A. Farley Post Office on Eighth Avenue into a gleaming new train station. It would be, he pledged, a return to an era of “great public works.”

    Andrea Mohin/The New York Times
    Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, second from left, in 1999, with President Bill Clinton and other federal and state officials as plans for a new Pennsylvania Station were unveiled.

    “It is up to a new generation to renew our cities,” Senator Moynihan said at a press conference with President Bill Clinton and Gov. George E. Pataki. “Penn Station is the start.”

    In the nine years since, what has become known as the Moynihan Station project has evolved into a grander, costlier and more complicated proposal involving not just government funds but private development. It is also in deep trouble, struggling under the weight of its own ambition. With credit drying up, the economy slowing and government assistance in question, there are signs that the plan may have to be significantly scaled back or indefinitely delayed.

    To some proponents of the late senator’s original vision, that might not be a bad thing. Those proponents, who include urban planners, preservationists and civic leaders, worry that the balance between public good and private benefits in the current plan has tipped distinctly in favor of the private.

    When Senator Moynihan first proposed replacing the cramped and confusing corridors of Pennsylvania Station, the nation’s busiest transit hub, with an elegant, spacious, glass-enclosed station, he envisioned it being built with public dollars.

    But in the years since, officials have concluded that government cannot afford the cost — as much as $3 billion to rebuild Penn Station — and that the only way to finance a new station was to entice private developers to do it. In exchange, those developers would be allowed to build, in grand scale, around the new station.

    Thus, the entire project has grown into a $14 billion behemoth that calls for not only creating a new station in the post office and refurbishing the existing station, but also building a half-dozen office towers and relocating Madison Square Garden one block to the post office building.

    Critics say the heart of the original plan — an elegant station — has become almost an afterthought. The developers, Stephen M. Ross of the Related Companies and Steven Roth of Vornado Realty Trust, have proposed building 1.1 million square feet of shops and department stores in the new Penn Station, more than eight times the amount of retail space at Grand Central Terminal.

    Those critics, who include urban planners and preservations, are also concerned that the Garden’s new arena would overwhelm the Farley building and obscure the proposed train station with a thicket of electronic billboards, ticket windows and glass walls.

    “Public-private partnerships are now one-sided arrangements in which the public actors no longer plan public spaces in the public interest,” said Elliott Sclar, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University. “Instead they facilitate private-sector developments of these spaces in exchange for slight public amenities. In this case, the public gets the chance to catch a train in the basement of a vertical shopping mall.”

    The critics say that given the level of public investment, tax breaks and zoning bonuses involved in the project, the city and state should be giving greater priority to the public spaces. And if that larger plan stalls, government should return to the late senator’s simpler, and less costly, original concept of a new $900 million station in the post office, for which government funds are already allocated.

    “There is an enormous amount of public money going into this, so the public deserves to get value,” said Peg Breen, president of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, a preservation group.

    But city and state officials and the developers contend that the best way to accomplish a grand station is in partnership with private developers. An ambitious new station, they assert, would not just provide an exciting new gateway to the city, it would also ignite development in the neighborhood.

    “The challenge we’re faced with is building what we’d all like to see and building what we can all afford,” said Robert C. Lieber, deputy mayor for economic development. “We want something as magnificent and appropriate as we can get.”

    People on both sides of the debate acknowledge that it may be impossible to build a new Penn Station without some private investment. The developers have promised to invest $550 million in a new train station, while the city and the state have each agreed to provide $300 million. In a meeting last week with the developers, Gov. Eliot Spitzer — who has consistently supported the more ambitious plan since taking office — said the state would invest additional money if the city would do the same, according to two executives who were there. He also wants the developers to invest more, in return for the rights to develop the skyscrapers.

    Both sides are hoping that this financial arrangement will help them persuade the federal government to make up the difference, as much as $800 million. But Senator Charles E. Schumer, who supports the project, said that “securing this level of federal support is going to be a very heavy lift.”


    Public-private partnerships have been a common approach to large projects ever since the city’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s, when politicians became more reluctant to raise taxes for public works. The state, for instance, created Battery Park City in Lower Manhattan in the 1970s and devised a master plan for the site and built the infrastructure. It later sold off parcels to individual developers who had to comply with the master plan.
    Senator Moynihan first proposed the project in the mid-1990s, using $488 million in public funds to transform roughly one-third of the Farley building, which sits across Eighth Avenue from Penn Station, into a train station.

    He said its grand staircase and two-block-long Corinthian colonnade would make a fitting home for Amtrak, which handles about 20 percent of the 550,000 passengers that now come into Penn Station daily. Plans called for a soaring glass-covered train hall designed by David Childs of the architectural firm of Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

    The state ultimately replaced Amtrak with New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Rail Road as the anchor tenants of the Farley building. It also struck a deal to buy the entire building for a larger project there, which would include more retail space and possibly an office tower. In 2005, the Pataki administration selected Mr. Roth and Mr. Ross to do the job.

    But the developers were soon working on an even more ambitious proposal, involving demolishing the Garden, which rests above Penn Station, and building a new arena within the Farley building. The developers said that would enable them to rebuild Penn Station, which is owned by Amtrak, and erect a pair of skyscrapers as tall as the Empire State Building, as well as an auxiliary station at the Farley building.

    In exchange for the train stations, the developers would get the right to build as much 7.5 million square feet of commercial and retail space in the area.

    “We are about making money here on a grand scale,” Mr. Roth told analysts at the time.

    Because they found it was nearly impossible to build skyscrapers over an active train station, the developers jettisoned the skyscrapers last year in favor of 1.1 million square feet of retail space inside the new, rebuilt Penn Station, while transferring 4.3 million square feet of development rights to surrounding parcels in a 20-block area.

    At the same time, the transportation agencies argued for larger and better central halls, ticketing booths and circulation. And the Bloomberg administration pushed the developers to design a distinctive train station that would rise above street level at Penn Station, but include a large block of retail space. Both demands have driven up the cost of the station.

    Although frustrated by bureaucratic inertia, a flagging economy and the current lack of financing for large projects, the developers and the Garden say they have been encouraged by Governor Spitzer’s decision to get personally involved in the negotiations. They have also suggested, along with some other proponents of the larger project, that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey should take over the Moynihan Station project.

    The developers, however, contend that they will spend billions on the stations before they can build their first tower.

    Given the growing complexity of the overall project, Kent Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society, said the state should push ahead with work on a new station in the post office. “Why not go ahead with the Farley and give more time for the developers and the Garden to work out the broader vision?” he said.

    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company.

  15. #2025

    Default

    My 2 cents on the rendering:

    - the buildings are placeholders for potential development, Moynihan East is the focus

    - Hotel Penn development seen as separate, so its left out

    - the buildings around Penn Plaza don't accurately depict current plans (there will be no
    skyscraper on the west side)

    - although there is a small hint of the original Penn Station on the 8th Ave facade, overall
    it just looks too blocky, especially with 2 Penn Plaza integrated into the design.

    - I'm not sure what that is on the corner of Farley, but it needs to go. It only gives the
    critics more ammunition.

    - final verdict: for all the money and time going into (and already spent on) this, surely
    they can come up with something better. The proposed JETS stadium was better than this.




    Older Farley rendering

Similar Threads

  1. Reimagining A Hub - Jackson Heights Station
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 29th, 2009, 12:38 AM
  2. Progress of Temporary PATH Station in WTC 'Tub'
    By NYguy in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: August 29th, 2008, 02:50 AM
  3. Neon for the 59th Street Marine Transfer Station
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 24th, 2005, 11:04 PM
  4. New Coney Island Train Station
    By BrooklynRider in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2005, 09:40 AM
  5. Station Renovation - East New York
    By Gulcrapek in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 30th, 2004, 09:59 AM

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