Thanks for posting. What gorgeous views!
I've read an article about St Malachy's church (W 49th street between B'way and 8th) and it talked about how the surrounding neighborhood became infested with drug pushers and pimps after the old MSG closed in 1968.
I'm real curious, did this mean 8th Avenue(Port Authority, etc) in general or specifically say 49th street and 8th where the church was was also a bad place?
Was the 785 blockfront as bad as say the 689 blockfront (43-44th) back in the day? Or was it any tamer? It's a little hard for me to visualize vice on 8th Avenue in the upper 40's because I've always associated it with the theater area rather than Times Square
Did the hotel (Loews, Ramada, Days, now Hilton Garden) at 790 have security problems as a result of the area, always curious about that
Only in NY could something so half-assed be built. Instead of bitching about a masterpiece like the Torre Verre, Amanda Burden and all of the morons that fought that tower should focus on preventing unfinished monstrosities like this from getting built.
It doesn't even look like a building.
I agree. It's ridiculous. Sadly, moreover, the sides that are finished are decent. However, this vast expanse of unfinished concrete is utterly absurd.
Instead of lecturing a master like Nouvel, Burden should try to prevent hacks like Leyva, et al from perpetuating such monstrosities.
It looks Asian.
The only reason Torre Verre is a great design is because they want the approvals from the city. When developers get the freedom to throw up whatever they want we end up with Brooklyner.
Last edited by Derek2k3; September 25th, 2009 at 05:03 PM.
Looks like a cheap version of Legacy at Millennium Park in Chicago.
Plus, even if what Derek said was the case, that shouldn't mean the city should then not approve them.
Soon enough, developers are gonna realize that even if you do try to something nice in this city, you'll still get screwed over by the city, so why even bother trying?
The folks in this city only care about size anyway, so if I was a developer, I'd just give 'em crap either way.
True, he also developed 40 Mercer and 383 Mad. I still believe if all these restrictions didn't exist and there was no approval process we'd be getting a much less stunning tower. But your right, the city should approve great designs regardless.
I think developers already know that. That route has been tried a few times by developers and failed. Design counts for almost nothing.Soon enough, developers are gonna realize that even if you do try to something nice in this city, you'll still get screwed over by the city, so why even bother trying?
Sorry to keep this off topic but here's an interesting thread that portrays what non-skyscraper fanatics think about taller buildings in the city.
Last edited by Derek2k3; September 26th, 2009 at 01:40 AM.
There must be something wrong with me. I like the damn thing.
Including that blank wall?
I think it would be fine but for that wall. That huge expanse of concrete looks like grey mierda in my opinion. Also, it's a shame that the largely abandoned dump on the north corner will never be redeveloped.