Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 325

Thread: Proposed - 980 Madison Avenue - by Norman Foster

  1. #61
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The renderings are fairly hysterical ...

    "uh-oh, it looks a bit harsh there ... I know ... let's add some trippy tail lights down below to distract the nimbys -- and smudge out the top so it looks like it's dissolving into the sky ... And let's sharpen the Carlisle -- let it take the front seat and maybe no one will notice how fat this thing is."



    "Great! And in this one let's draw it like it's made of cotton candy ... and surround it by wispy clouds -- like it's a dream of a building, just tippy-toeing above that boring base they tell us we have to keep!"


  2. #62

    Default

    If, in the name of "progress," greedy developers hadn't razed half of NY, it would have been one of the most beautiful cities in the world.



    It still has some beautiful areas, but with a..hole developers looking to make a buck at the expense of maintaining pristine areas, who knows what will happen. As I said, I was disgusted tonight when I walked by the 56th St. townhouses, now I can't sleep after reading this article.
    Last edited by londonlawyer; October 10th, 2006 at 12:48 AM.

  3. #63
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    It's not at all inconsistent.

    The Madison Ave area is a Landmarked District -- for obvious reasons that I won't lay out here.

    The Con Ed site is not.

    Any battle to get this tower built on that site should start with striking down Landmarking regulations.
    Let me preface this by saying that there are many other areas out there that are currently not landmarked, that either deserve to be, or are actively being fought to be included by their residents.

    I wouldn't hold the Landmarks designations as the highest authority. As an illustration, here's a section of the Upper East Side historic district:



    As you can clearly see, there are areas less than a block away from this building's proposed site that are not within the boundaries of the historic district. Does that mean your opposition would go away if the proposal was in one of those areas?

    I still think inconsistency is in play here. Landmarked or not, there are certain areas of the city that you can definitely categorize as historic and residential. The Upper East Side and Tudor City both fit that distinction. (In fact, the old Con Ed factory was close itself to being considered for landmarks designation.) Any kind of generalization about an entire area leads to the kind of NIMBYism that can blindly refuse any type of new development that is inappropriate, in scale or design, for the neighborhood.

  4. #64
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post

    And for the record: the Con Ed site is not in Midtown. It's within the confines of Tudor City ...
    That's just not true ...

    1st Avenue separates the Tudor City / Con Ed site completely.

    Not one inch of Tudor City lies east of 1st Avenue and not a single inch of the Con Ed site is west of 1st Avenue.

  5. #65
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post

    I wouldn't hold the Landmarks designations as the highest authority...
    You don't have to, I don't care. But Landmark regs apply to this site. The fact that you seem not to believe in regulations matters not a whit.

    If it was proposed for outside the District we'd be having a different discussion.

    I don't like this building. You do.

    But I hardly ever venture to that neighborhood so I'll let others fight it out.

  6. #66
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer View Post
    Why doesn't Foster plop a 30 story glass tower in the middle of Whitehall? (Perhaps because it would ruin the area.)
    Oh, and I suppose this ruined the area:



    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    The renderings are fairly hysterical ...

    "uh-oh, it looks a bit harsh there ... I know ... let's add some trippy tail lights down below to distract the nimbys -- and smudge out the top so it looks like it's dissolving into the sky ... And let's sharpen the Carlisle -- let it take the front seat and maybe no one will notice how fat this thing is."

    "Great! And in this one let's draw it like it's made of cotton candy ... and surround it by wispy clouds -- like it's a dream of a building, just tippy-toeing above that boring base they tell us we have to keep!"
    Oh, come on. There is nothing out of the ordinary in these renderings except the way they're being received.

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer View Post
    If, in the name of "progress," greedy developers hadn't razed half of NY, it would have been one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
    Your point is well-noted, but somewhat irrelevant: what is being destroyed here? There are no buildings up for demolition.

  7. #67
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post

    I wouldn't hold the Landmarks designations as the highest authority...
    You don't have to, I don't care. But Landmark regs apply to this site. The fact that you seem not to believe in regulations matters not a whit.

    If it was proposed for outside the District we'd be having a different discussion.

    I don't like this building. You do.

    But I hardly ever venture to that neighborhood so I'll let others fight it out.

  8. #68
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    1,398

    Thumbs up

    I love the tower, it's sleek, it's beautiful, the proportions are perfect, it's bold!

    Just dump the ugly 50's base. That building, and some others in the area, have always bugged me by how they do not keep a consistent streetwall. Now we have a shot to fix that, and put in a masterpiece of modern architecture that is so refreshing for residential design.

  9. #69
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post
    Your point is well-noted, but somewhat irrelevant: what is being destroyed here? There are no buildings up for demolition.
    Good points. I gotta say though, if the current 50's stub of a building was up for demolition, I wouldn't exactly be weeping.

  10. #70
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    OMG, this is so beautiful.
    Lord Foster, indeed!

    What are the obstacles to this one getting built?

    I swear I'll murder somebody if they disapprove this one and in the end we get another 12-story box instead.

  11. #71
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    That's just not true ...

    1st Avenue separates the Tudor City / Con Ed site completely.

    Not one inch of Tudor City lies east of 1st Avenue and not a single inch of the Con Ed site is west of 1st Avenue.
    Okay...but does that really change things? Put it this way: is the area between 34th and 41st and east of 1st, in Tudor City's backyard, or in Midtown's?

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    You don't have to, I don't care. But Landmark regs apply to this site. The fact that you seem not to believe in regulations matters not a whit.

    If it was proposed for outside the District we'd be having a different discussion.

    I don't like this building. You do.

    But I hardly ever venture to that neighborhood so I'll let others fight it out.
    Really? If it was proposed one block further north (hence, outside of the district), we'd be having a different discussion?

    I don't think people here care so much that it's in a historic district. It's the underlying, physical characteristics that matter: predominantly lowrise, old, buildings. Designation is just that - designation. The fact that the boundaries of historic districts and neighborhoods are so fickle is just more proof that they don't need to be taken so matter-of-factly.

    What ever happened to evaluating a design based on how good it is, and how well it fits its site? Does the fact that historic buildings exist several blocks away really matter that much?

  12. #72

    Default

    What we have here is a luxury building with an excellent, dynamic design rising above street-level retail, what I'm hearing is that this building doesn't fit in with the mansions and townhouses which although they are the bulk of this neighborhood aren't unimpeded by residential high-rises, especially in a city like New York. I'm sorry I don't buy the argument, I don't feel that the architecture of the rich from over one-hundred years ago, built when the technology of the day did not yet allow for high-rise construction constitutes that progress and growth of today, must stop in respect to old-aristocracy. This is an area for millionaire’s and their elaborate homes, and this building fits right in, what sets this building apart is technology and progress. Restricting this building on such grounds is the antithesis of the democratic city and it goes against progress which is the sign of a city’ health.

  13. #73
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    It's so beautiful, why don't we have a look at it one more time? :droooool:



    Can we replace Maki's WTC 4 with this one instead?

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    335

    Default

    The renders are really bad.

  15. #75
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Stern: your post was right-on.

Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 745 Seventh Avenue
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 27th, 2012, 09:05 PM
  2. 425 Fifth Avenue
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 03:24 PM
  3. 383 Madison Avenue - former Bear Stearns Building - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
    By Derek2k3 in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: September 5th, 2010, 10:11 AM
  4. 101 West End Avenue
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 24th, 2003, 10:27 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