View Poll Results: Hotel Pennsylvania should be replaced with the proposed office building

Voters
169. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    76 44.97%
  • No

    93 55.03%
Page 117 of 131 FirstFirst ... 1767107113114115116117118119120121127 ... LastLast
Results 1,741 to 1,755 of 1956

Thread: Hotel Pennsylvania - by McKim Mead & White - to be replaced by 15 Penn Plaza

  1. #1741

    Default

    I'd love to see that rendering become reality.

    the one thing the 15PP design needs, as other have said, is a few hundred foot tall spire. It looks a bit chopped off at the top.

    Quote Originally Posted by arcman210 View Post
    For those who are saying Hudson Yards will destroy the view of the ESB as a justification for the height and girth of 15 Penn, Hudson Yards is too far away to have a major effect on the view like 15 Penn would... not to mention that the ESB sits at a higher elevation than Hudson Yards will, but not 15 Penn.

  2. #1742

    Default

    Man, I just love the Manhattan West towers. I don't know. I think they've grown on me.

  3. #1743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RandySavage View Post
    I'm one (of the few?) who actually kind of like the Pelli building (as rendered) and have no problem with its height/sharing the skyline, BUT still vehemently oppose taking down the Hotel Penn.

    Most people here fully agree that New York is not a museum and new towers must rise. What is so frustrating is that there are thousands of lots occupied with crappy buildings/parking lots/rail yards where new towers can go. So if Hotel Penn and other significant, historic buildings that merit protection are all landmarked, developers would have to look for economic opportunities elsewhere - in this case, perhaps the block north of Hotel Penn that is filled with garbage buildings. It could easily be a win-win-win-win for the Developer, Short-term Economy, Long-term Economy and Built Environment. Instead it will be a win-win-lose-lose.
    Well said RandySavage. There are plenty of blcoks you drive by & think, "What an architectural dump". Other blocks look like the most desired in Manhattan. I think they should step up the landmarking process, although I do understand they can't put every pre-war building under that umbrella.

    Oquatanginwan: Great song!

    Well, if they are going to go ahead & build it, taper it off toward the top & put a spire (antenna?) on top or it will look off kilter. I have to agree a little with a Daily News reader who said that it looks like the box the ESB came in. They can improve it a little bit & lessen the bulk.

  4. #1744
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    They've been given the OK to build what we've seen. Sadly, they've no reason now to lessen the bulk.

  5. #1745

    Default

    I'm no fan of bulk, which is a synonym for corpulence. Reduce the fat blue building's girth by a third, and increase its height by the same amount.

  6. #1746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mariab View Post
    I have to agree a little with a Daily News reader who said that it looks like the box the ESB came in.
    How original.

  7. #1747

    Default

    Wait, isn't that what they said the original World Trade Center looked like...?

    When exactly are they going to find the boxes for these buildings?

  8. #1748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mariab View Post
    I do understand they can't put every pre-war building under [the landmarks] umbrella.
    Why not? Given the pace of construction these days, and the number of surface lots/crappy 1- or 2-story taxpayers/postwar disasters/unutilized or underutilized land on the territory of housing project developments, I think we could easily landmark all prewar architecture and sustain the current level of building for some time. It wouldn't mean anything built pre-1941 is off-limits, but it would mean that there would be some decent level of scrutiny applied to any attempt to destroy those properties, and it would shift development toward the surface lots, taxpayers, etc. That would enrich the quality of life of city residents, the desirability of living and working in the city, and property values more than anything else.
    Last edited by Stroika; September 11th, 2010 at 02:30 AM.

  9. #1749

    Default

    ^
    Mariab is right.

    Landmarks gets its teeth from a law, and involves taking some control over private property. If its application becomes capricious, the entire law is vulnerable to challenge.

  10. #1750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    Why not? Given the pace of construction these days, and the number of surface lots/crappy 1- or 2-story taxpayers/postwar disasters/unutilized or underutilized land on the territory of housing project developments, I think we could easily landmark all prewar architecture and sustain the current level of building for some time. It wouldn't mean anything built pre-1941 is off-limits, but it would mean that there would be some decent level of scrutiny applied to any attempt to destroy those properties, and it would shift development toward the surface lots, taxpayers, etc. That would enrich the quality of life of city residents, the desirability of living and working in the city, and property values more than anything else.
    I completely agree with you. In Europe, they would not consider razing pre-War buildings. The same should be the case here.

  11. #1751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer View Post
    I completely agree with you. In Europe, they would not consider razing pre-War buildings. The same should be the case here.
    Yeah, lets follow Europe (where McD is actually considered a type of food). Look say what you want about 15 Penn Plaza but the Empire State Building was built here because we aren't Europe. That's why Europe doesn't have one - and why we do.

    15 Penn Plaza looks pretty good even if it is just a big concrete and glass version of a suppository and the naysayers can take a jump. I mean have you read some of the negative rants?

  12. #1752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer View Post
    In Europe, they would not consider razing pre-War buildings.
    A lot of it was gone, well, post-War.

  13. #1753

    Default

    Oh please please pretty please find that tenant already.

    I walked (yes, walked) past this dump yesterday for the first time in 2 years and Hotel Pennsylvania needs to come down for this new tower, like now.

    15 Penn Plaza can't come soon enough. We need something sparkling and shiny in that dreary area ASAP.

  14. #1754

    Default

    Maybe someone should have imposed landmarking on the Luftwaffe and the Eighth Air Force? Don't know how LeMay would have taken that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    A lot of it was gone, well, post-War.

  15. #1755

    Default

    Well apparently the landmarking committee has very specific criteria when it comes to choosing these buildings, as demonstrated recently by the rejection of landmark status of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. If you have strong anti-mosque feelings, and/or if you absolutely love architecture, it is a beautiful design, & you will find things about it to rationalize why it should be picked. Taking an objective viewpoint, there is not much that's remarkable about it, & I think that's the approach the committee takes on every building they look at. I hope they can widen the criteria a little bit so the city won't be overrun. On the other side of the coin, the owners of many pre-wars must be forced to renovate and/or maintain their buildings so they don't fall into decay, which is a neon sign saying "Please raze me". Simply slathering on a coat of paint doesn't do it. Lastly, as Lofter1 said, the decision's been made, so they won't change the design. I think the designers of 15 Penn feel they have made a compromise between modern & traditional, which is why it looks the way it does. People hated the look of the old WTC when they first got a glimpse of the artist's rendering back in the 60s. This is kind of the same thing.

Similar Threads

  1. W New York - Times Square Hotel
    By hyperfine in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 18th, 2005, 09:55 PM
  2. Skyline Hotel 10th Avenue - How is the area?
    By Annie Wood in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 31st, 2003, 05:56 PM
  3. NYC Targets 5.4M SF in New Brooklyn Office Towers
    By billyblancoNYC in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 16th, 2003, 09:43 PM
  4. In Office Market, a Time of Uncertainty
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 6th, 2002, 09:18 PM
  5. Pictures of luxurious W Hotel - Times Square
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 29th, 2001, 01:36 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