nybt-forum-threads NYC = NYBT General Talks

[Xyloxadoria 1,099]

 

I've decided to merge a few threads (Suggestion Box, NYC - New Buildings and Construction, World Trade Center NYC) into one and make a place for NYBT members and other Members to talk about whatever they want related to NYC and NYBT.

 

This thread will serve as general off-topic discussion forum. If a certain thread is not in the NYBT forums, and you don't feel like it deserves it's own thread but you feel like you wanna talk about it, this is the place for that. 

 

-Vlasky

 

I thought I'd start this thread in case anyone wanted to post new stuff being made in NYC.

 

Here is an image I found that shows some new stuff going up in Midtown Manhattan. I really don't like any of them (except One57) Are these buildings going to ruin the NYC Skyline?

 

 Also in other news, they have broken ground on the Hudson Yards project to be built over the Hudson Railyard. Its going to look like this:

 

At least this project isnt as bad or ugly as some of the residential stuff (imo) but it will still be a significant change to the NYC skyline. What do you think?

  Edited April 4, 2015 by Vlasky  
Merging of the threads.

[Seraf 1,238]

To quote one of my idols: new york grows daily more hideous. All of this residential towers are simply too high. They will cast large shadows on Central Park (not to mention other buildings) taking more of already scarce sunlight. As for the Hudson Yards, it's noting special, there are hundreds of buildings like this in whole whole world - glassy and shiny but without any artistical value.

[JP Schriefer 5,590]

I think the buildings are really beautiful, but they will be weird in NYC style. But like BATs they're going to be awesome

[PBGV103 729]

Ok, so they aren't ornate and some like 217 W 57th are just strange, but NYC isn't a museum.  It isn't Paris.  It's a city that needs to continuously develop or it will be left far behind cities like Hong Kong and London.

 

Also, take a look at some of the 220 CPS renders.  I actually like the art deco look they're going for there, and 111 W 57th kind of looks like organ pipes, which I find interesting.

[Seraf 1,238]

Ok, so they aren't ornate and some like 217 W 57th are just strange, but NYC isn't a museum.  It isn't Paris.  It's a city that needs to continuously develop or it will be left far behind cities like Hong Kong and London.

 

Also, take a look at some of the 220 CPS renders.  I actually like the art deco look they're going for there, and 111 W 57th kind of looks like organ pipes, which I find interesting.

 

The fact that they aren't ornate is not a big deal. What bother me the most is as I said the height. I really do get that city needs to develop, but making people live in a shadows isn't really progress to me. Also, with its supertall rush New York seems to forget that building such high towers on every corner isn't really good for city from urbanistic point of view.

While I appreciate architecture of 220 CPS, some of those new towers are just about height, not really about anything more.

 

EDIT: Just to show why I'm not enthusiastic about those towers:

 

 

[PBGV103 729]

I understand people's concern over the shadows; however, when I was there at 6PM, at sunset about a month ago the shadows weren't even reaching Heckscher playground.  Central Park south of the playground is already nothing but trees.  This with the fact that the diagram lists a specific date makes me think they simply picked the day of the year that the shadows would be the longest, and that is the general consensus on the skyscrapercity and skyscraperpage forums.  It would have been a much more convincing and informative diagram if they had shown what the yearly average shadows would look like.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

I thought I'd start this thread in case anyone wanted to post new stuff being made in NYC.

 

Here is an image I found that shows some new stuff going up in Midtown Manhattan. I really don't like any of them (except One57) Are these buildings going to ruin the NYC Skyline?

 

 Also in other news, they have broken ground on the Hudson Yards project to be built over the Hudson Railyard. Its going to look like this:

 

At least this project isnt as bad or ugly as some of the residential stuff (imo) but it will still be a significant change to the NYC skyline. What do you think?

 

I think some of the buildings in the first picture are way too tall. Especielly when you consider how skinny they are. Imagine being at the top of 111 West 57th street during a hurricane. I'd be scared shitless. As for the other picture, I hate it. Oh well. At least those things wouldn't haunt my nightmares. "hrhrm, Hudson Yards"

[GuerrilaWarfare 39]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm looking forward to 53 west 53rd street, "Tower Verre". It remains an open lot still, since funding is still under dispute. It's also gone through series of design changes, and the latest design is not up to par with the original renderings, mostly because the height was reduced by a couple hundred feet.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

These new buildings don't fit in with the surrounding area. Too much glass and too little masonry clad outer walls.

[cmdp123789 710]

Oh wow.. Well, if I have to be honest, i have some mixed feelings about this..

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is ¨too tall¨ and then Im like ¨they take away the glances from other landmarks around¨.. but then, I realized that we are talking about New York City... the capital of the finances around the world... the capital of the world! We are talking the same New York that was revolutionary with its skyscrapers.. the same city that if we think about, during the 70s built the World Trade Center, which by the time, surpassed all the other buildings, and stood out. We are talking about the same city that since it was born, has been the number one city in the world.. surpassing cities like London, Paris, Hong Kong.. the same city that represents America.. 

 

Yes, those buildings stand out.. yes, those buildings kill the area.. but so did the World Trade Center, and so did the Empire State, and so did everything that changed the city.. but at the same time, thats what makes the city what it is.. Constantly changing.. never static.. the city that never sleeps..

 

Remember.. New York has new rivals.. Shanghai.. Tokyo... Dubai.. so in order to keep up, and remain the capital of the world, it needs those investments, it needs those towers.. and on top of everything.. it needs to move on.

 

After all... look at London.. say whatever you want about the Shard... which stands out a LOT MORE than these towers.. but there it is.. and now you look at it as part of the city.. 

[elavery 1,013]

So presumably we can follow the progress of the BATs of these buildings in this thread too?

[Parisian 549]

Ok, so they aren't ornate and some like 217 W 57th are just strange, but NYC isn't a museum.  It isn't Paris.  It's a city that needs to continuously develop or it will be left far behind cities like Hong Kong and London.

 

Also, take a look at some of the 220 CPS renders.  I actually like the art deco look they're going for there, and 111 W 57th kind of looks like organ pipes, which I find interesting.

 

Paris? You should be informed.Take a look at what's happening in Paris architecturally speaking. 

But maybe you got confused between Paris and Rome.

[PBGV103 729]

From what I had heard, in much of Paris you can't tear down buildings for new construction because they want to preserve the historical and cohesive feel of the city.  What you said made me curious so I googled it and it looks like in the past couple years they removed the height restriction on construction, so now it would actually make sense to build new instead of renovating.  It seems Paris could be seeing some new skyscrapers in it's future, or at least a lot of proposals.

[Xyloxadoria 1,099]

I just found an article about this going up in the upper west side

 

It looks bad in the Render but the actual thing is not that bad. Its just different. It would be that "museum that PGBV mentioned. Heres the ugly render:

 

[Seraf 1,238]

I understand people's concern over the shadows; however, when I was there at 6PM, at sunset about a month ago the shadows weren't even reaching Heckscher playground.  Central Park south of the playground is already nothing but trees.  This with the fact that the diagram lists a specific date makes me think they simply picked the day of the year that the shadows would be the longest, and that is the general consensus on the skyscrapercity and skyscraperpage forums.  It would have been a much more convincing and informative diagram if they had shown what the yearly average shadows would look like.

 

They made diagrams illustrating the average day in autumn and winter, the shadows in spring would be rather simillar to those from autumn and of course shadows in summer would be shortest.

With such differences especially when you have less sunlight in winter, I don't think such diagram showing yearly average shadows would work.

 

 

Remember.. New York has new rivals.. Shanghai.. Tokyo... Dubai..

 

Not really worthy opponents, to me it's a little like a middle-aged man that tries to look like he's seventeen in order to compete with younger guys

 

 

 

Ok, so they aren't ornate and some like 217 W 57th are just strange, but NYC isn't a museum.  It isn't Paris.  It's a city that needs to continuously develop or it will be left far behind cities like Hong Kong and London.

 

Also, take a look at some of the 220 CPS renders.  I actually like the art deco look they're going for there, and 111 W 57th kind of looks like organ pipes, which I find interesting.

 

Paris? You should be informed.Take a look at what's happening in Paris architecturally speaking. 

But maybe you got confused between Paris and Rome.

 

 

Rome unfortunately too have some new buildings that doesn't really fit in there...

[Parisian 549]

 

I understand people's concern over the shadows; however, when I was there at 6PM, at sunset about a month ago the shadows weren't even reaching Heckscher playground.  Central Park south of the playground is already nothing but trees.  This with the fact that the diagram lists a specific date makes me think they simply picked the day of the year that the shadows would be the longest, and that is the general consensus on the skyscrapercity and skyscraperpage forums.  It would have been a much more convincing and informative diagram if they had shown what the yearly average shadows would look like.

 

They made diagrams illustrating the average day in autumn and winter, the shadows in spring would be rather simillar to those from autumn and of course shadows in summer would be shortest.

With such differences especially when you have less sunlight in winter, I don't think such diagram showing yearly average shadows would work.

 

 

Remember.. New York has new rivals.. Shanghai.. Tokyo... Dubai..

 

Not really worthy opponents, to me it's a little like a middle-aged man that tries to look like he's seventeen in order to compete with younger guys

 

 

 

Ok, so they aren't ornate and some like 217 W 57th are just strange, but NYC isn't a museum.  It isn't Paris.  It's a city that needs to continuously develop or it will be left far behind cities like Hong Kong and London.

 

Also, take a look at some of the 220 CPS renders.  I actually like the art deco look they're going for there, and 111 W 57th kind of looks like organ pipes, which I find interesting.

 

Paris? You should be informed.Take a look at what's happening in Paris architecturally speaking. 

But maybe you got confused between Paris and Rome.

 

 

Rome unfortunately too have some new buildings that doesn't really fit in there...

 

 

True !

I just wanted to point the fact that Paris as way more in common with London than Rome (although both get very old buildings). It's just the fact that most modern stuffs and high rises are located outside of the tourist areas. People should be more curious sometimes. 

[Parisian 549]

From what I had heard, in much of Paris you can't tear down buildings for new construction because they want to preserve the historical and cohesive feel of the city.  What you said made me curious so I googled it and it looks like in the past couple years they removed the height restriction on construction, so now it would actually make sense to build new instead of renovating.  It seems Paris could be seeing some new skyscrapers in it's future, or at least a lot of proposals.

 

Yes you are right. In fact, what is missing to Paris is a serious new skyscraper which could figure as an international symbol. 3 buildings has been built recently in the business district. This is one of those (unfortunately less than 200m high)

 

 

 

Sorry to be out of subject. Let's get back to NEW YORK

[cmdp123789 710]

Before we move back to Paris.. Lets not forget that one big obstacle to building high rises in central Paris is the fact that catacombs wont allow such constructions. The underground is all empty and hollow, which means that there is actually no base for such buildings.

 

Anyways... back to NYC...

 

I get the frustration from people who look at the aestethics of the city... And to be honest, I dont love those buildings... But on the hand, I admire how they keep doing this huge projects.. I love how they keep going up, and I love how, despite the man trying to look 17 LOL!! Good one Seraf.. It keeps trying to show the world that NYC is NYC!! 

 

And at least you have to admit that what I said about WTC, Empire State.. those are all examples of how at first the stand out, but then become part of the city itself..

[Parisian 549]

Midtown future skyscrapers get their place in this glass/concrete forrest in my Opinion. Maybe more than others, such as Torre Verre or 220 CP South which really fit to Manhattan spirit.

 

Concerning the Hudson Yards area, it's a lil bit more complicate. I find this to disequilibrate the Midtown perspective. The ESB being the light house driving all these buildings straight. 

I found this pics on a architecture topic that most in here know :

 

 

 

[Jasoncw 11,840]

For as long as there have been new tall buildings, this is what people have said about them.

 

Just like how generation after generation says "today's music sucks but old music is awesome".

[Seraf 1,238]

Before we move back to Paris.. Lets not forget that one big obstacle to building high rises in central Paris is the fact that catacombs wont allow such constructions. The underground is all empty and hollow, which means that there is actually no base for such buildings.

 

Anyways... back to NYC...

 

I get the frustration from people who look at the aestethics of the city... And to be honest, I dont love those buildings... But on the hand, I admire how they keep doing this huge projects.. I love how they keep going up, and I love how, despite the man trying to look 17 LOL!! Good one Seraf.. It keeps trying to show the world that NYC is NYC!! 

 

And at least you have to admit that what I said about WTC, Empire State.. those are all examples of how at first the stand out, but then become part of the city itself..

 

Usually I don't pay that much attention to new buildings (especially towers) unless something is really not right with the project, in this case I'm concerned about the shadows which the new buildings will cast.  Don't really pay attention to what I said about a man, it was just a little joke

 

And yes, Empire State really stood out and then become part of the skyline. But I can't shake that feeling that it still had some sense of human scale - something that new buildings very often lack.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

People at the time thought the ESB was disgustingly out of scale. They thought that the endlessly repeating geometry and the machine aesthetic and the materials (to them it was a glass and metal building not a limestone building) were cold, soulless, and offensive. NYC was the Dubai of that period.

 

And now somehow the very tall building that fills an entire block is human scaled, and "traditional", tall but not too tall, etc.

 

Only a few decades before the ESB was built, there was public outroar when skyscrapers were first starting to become taller than church steeples and city halls. And they thought the facades were gigantic and repetitive, and they thought they drowned the streets in shadow (which happens even at 10 stories).

 

It's all relative. Your children or grandchildren might think that the towers being built in 2014 are just the right size, but that the towers being built in their time are just too big and tall.

 

 

The shadows are something that objectively exist, and people will always like sunlight. But Manhattan is its own place with its own rules and I think people will get used to the shadows. They already live in way more shadow than almost every human on the planet.

[Seraf 1,238]

People at the time thought the ESB was disgustingly out of scale. They thought that the endlessly repeating geometry and the machine aesthetic and the materials (to them it was a glass and metal building not a limestone building) were cold, soulless, and offensive. NYC was the Dubai of that period.

 

And now somehow the very tall building that fills an entire block is human scaled, and "traditional", tall but not too tall, etc.

 

Only a few decades before the ESB was built, there was public outroar when skyscrapers were first starting to become taller than church steeples and city halls. And they thought the facades were gigantic and repetitive, and they thought they drowned the streets in shadow (which happens even at 10 stories).

 

It's all relative. Your children or grandchildren might think that the towers being built in 2014 are just the right size, but that the towers being built in their time are just too big and tall.

 

 

The shadows are something that objectively exist, and people will always like sunlight. But Manhattan is its own place with its own rules and I think people will get used to the shadows. They already live in way more shadow than almost every human on the planet.

 

I guess you're right in both cases (but then I think people back then were right too) I just think that ESB with its almost 400m height is just enough, it has some design to itself (although repetitive) and isn't a bad piece of architecture after all, of course I would rather see the old Waldorf-Astoria in its place but well...

 

I don't like the thought but I have this feeling that people in three or four generations will have bigger problems than height of towers. I hope I'm wrong here.

 

Yes, that's why Central Park is so important, because it is one of those few places where you can still enjoy sunlight and good weather with your family.

 

Don't get me wrong Jason, I'm not opposed to new constructions. I just think that we should be careful.

[unclesahm 32]

New York's skyline has always been shaped by money, not necessarily aesthetics. Take a look at this picture of the Plaza Hotel from the around the time it was built: 

 

A modern-day architecture critic called this a giant middle finger to the neighborhood... completely out of context, sticking out like a sore thumb. At the time it was built, midtown was flat and low; all the building took place in south Manhattan. Eventually, the neighborhood grew around it. 

 

Back in the day, the financiers of the Empire State Building were engaged in a fight to whom could have the tallest skyscraper (as you all know -- this has been noted in another thread). 

 

I love recreating New York in my game and look forward to all you guys' releases. But I think that more important than having all the buildings is recreating how they play off each other; because of the limited space in Midtown buildings are very close to each other and architects had to take the neighborhood in consideration lest you end up .

 

The second thing that truly shaped the skyline is the city's arcane zoning laws. That is why, for instance, the Financial District can't expand northward. This helps preserve some only-in-New York neighborhoods like SoHo, Chinatown, and the LES. But for my money, TriBeCa could stand being rezoned as it is a ghost town most of the time. This is also why there are so many overhanging buildings. Zoning laws restrict the amount of usable living/office space a building can have. The buildings' next-door-neighbors can sell their air rights and the new buildings can expand sideways. (As you all know, this problem used to be solved by "wedding-cake" designs that tier upward. That went on until the 60's and 70's.

 

Another thing that factors in is the proximity to public transport. (Though these new towers are an exception, probably because the billionaires who can afford it are probably not taking the subway. Remember, the subways were built a good twenty years before the big skyscraper rushes. The largest - if not tallest - buildings are placed alongside subway stations - Rockefeller Center, The Bank of America Building, The Time Warner Center, and Times Square are a couple examples - they both have subway stations underneath. The area around Grand Central Station is a jungle of skyscrapers. Bloomberg wanted to rezone the area to allow for taller buildings, but that plan was scrapped. 

 

This is all to say that the future skyline will change with thin towers that go higher and higher, so it's safe to say that these towers will be joined by many others, particularly around the congested Midtown area. You can expect the area around Madison Square Garden to build up; there are several plans in the works to build on top of older buildings. Hudson Yards may stand out alone for a while, but the neighborhood will join it. The Financial District , though, will remain roughly the same.

P.S. What's the name of that building in the UWS? It's horrid. I used to live in the UWS and this sucks all the charm out of it. Pity.

[Seraf 1,238]

A modern-day architecture critic called this a giant middle finger to the neighborhood... completely out of context, sticking out like a sore thumb.

 

Which one? I remember rather favorable opinions in architectural world regarding this hotel... Even Wright thought it was well designed building.

[unclesahm 32]

I read it on Twitter. See here: https://twitter.com/CapitalNotLand/status/432300262770737152

[edwardjeria 503]

I'll just give my opinion 

both high glass building will make the city look cold and soulless 

new york was founded in non-glass art deco 

or how I see this future is not far 

I hope you never get to this 

 

[cmdp123789 710]

Well it wont get to that while we are alive... but you gotta remember that the way the city looks today is probably the way it looked to people in the past, that truly expected to have the city look like a European city.

 

Remember, every city in North America was supposed to be British, and if you look at early architecture, everything looked british.. Now, imagine New York... and think how it would look like if it was resembling London.. wow, right? 

[Aaron Graham 4,417]

Here's some new apartments for the Queens skyline it's called Hunter Pointer View.

 

Google Map link to the area:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Queens&ll=40.742226,-73.959766&spn=0.00101,0.001635&hnear=Queens,+Queens+County,+New+York&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.742226,-73.960023&panoid=hjrZ7OEnBfokyT5x_DS8IQ&cbp=12,44.71,,0,-22.78
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Map of the area withe the Future buildings.
 

 
 
Link to the area, there's a bunch of buildings in this area made in the Early 2000's, I think these apartments are beautiful.
 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

[Francis90b 748]

My two cents.

 

I'd mention another situation which generated a radical transformation in urban environment, that of the early stages of industrial revolution.

 

Factories literally dictated the way cities were built, to the point that the difference between "urban" and "human" needs and "factory" needs was extremely feeble if not existent.

Factories needed railways - so railways came in, cutting and crisscrossing cities like spiderwebs, often running between buildings, on viaducts and even on streets, bringing in their share of goods as well as noise and fumes.

Around that steely web even more factories came, often lacking any attempt to respond any concern that wasn't that of immediate profit and strict adherence to the conditions that would generate as much of it as possible.

And next to these, neighborhoods sprang to host the human multitudes factories needed, and attracted.

Close to factories, sometimes literally at a stone throw from them,  built without any concern other than providing a dwelling as fast and economically as possible, they often suffered from severe pollution coming from railways and factories, poor construction, cramped, substandard dwellings - And awareness and concerns about all this took decades to build up.

 

Our reality is different - more advanced modes of production and transportation transformed it, and we're aware of the extent and of the severity of most of the environmental, urban and human implications contained within the few lines i wrote only because of old, faded postcards and photos and sometimes written accounts.

 

It's worth noticing that a number of concerns that were considered as almost irrelevant back then would seem quite relevant and legitimate to us, and we certainly wouldn't downplay them as secondary issues or outright non-existent issues in the path of progress - as much as it's worth noticing that man adapts himself to live in almost any condition and situation - man adapted himself to live in cramped, miserabile dwellings in early 19th century london, he managed to adapt himself to mine coal and asbestoes in the most primitive and unsafe of the working conditions, and to work in non-fireproof textile factories which claimed the lives of many if, and when, something went wrong -Indeed, mankind adapts itself to any condition he sees fit to generate in order to follow economic imperatives, yet this certainly doesn't mean that every and any living (or working) condition mankind adapts into can be considered acceptable.