Too bad for the NIMBY losers, the area is already zoned for large and tall buildings. :haha:
And yes, there are Islands where we can send these NIMBY's.....right on Dubai's Palm Islands. |
Lolwut? First it's Hong Kong on the Hudson, now it's Dubai?
|
Quote:
|
Or Rikers.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I wouldn’t waste too much time being concerned with these folks. It’s the same old song and dance every time, but in this case a lot of zoning work was performed to warrant such a large development. I have no doubt that this site will eventually amount to that; it’s just a question of when (which will most likely be during the next boom).
|
I think this is a self-correcting problem. As free property, especially lots conducive to BIG projects, become more scarce and expensive, you will see bigger and bigger projects built (vs. some 15 story 'thing' that does not raise eyebrows).
If we are lucky, small developments will be priced out of the market, and only very tall or very unique/special projects will be built out of business necessity. |
Why do these NIMBY fuckwits live in NYC? Why dont they move to the suburbs and enjoy a lack of architectural diversity there instead of living in one of the most dense cities on the planet? These people piss me off to no end, uhg.
|
http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ent_unchanged/
Goldman-Sachs has backed out of their minority stake but that will not halt development... |
Send the NIMBYs somewhere far worse than Staten Island or any other island... Send them right to New Jersey...
|
Quote:
|
Petition to get the second station on the 7 line extension into Hudson Yards built...
http://www.buildthestation.com/ |
Quote:
|
In fact, according to the Times article, there's a building going up on the site where the station entrance is supposed to be. If I remember correctly, the original design for the station had it integrated with the new building. How are they going to do that now?
From the NY Times: Quote:
|
so what will happen when NYC is out of developable space?
|
Simple: Beautiful old buildings get torn down for plain glass boxes
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
for the first time ever im gonna be a nimby on this project it needs to be shorter so its not blocking the empire state building. They need to keep buildings away from it and shorter than it for ones that are close. I like right now how its in the center and theirs buildings on the otskirts and behind it but no supertall should be up farther than downtown than esb. The new proposal is perfect the original one was definately too big.
|
Quote:
|
The area is already zoned for large towers, that is what we'll eventually see here. How tall though? That's another question.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
P.S. The last thing we need here in Staten Island is more NIMBYs. Pass! |
Quote:
|
if only building over the railyards wasnt so super-complicated, time consuming and expensive.
lets dont forget the other and even more practical site for supertalls is over on the eastside of manhattan south of the united nations. we are out of the worst of the financial crisis -- which site will get built up first? :shrug: |
Quote:
|
http://www.observer.com/2010/real-es...s-go-1200-foot
For Steve Ross, Rail Yards Rent Starts When Apartments Cost $1,200 a Foot By Eliot Brown April 26, 2010 Quote:
|
Quote:
are we still getting this? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
is there a possiblity of anything rising higher than the ESB?
|
Quote:
So yes, we will probably get this, or something roughly resembling this. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
All of us that salivated over Brookfield's plan remember it all too well, and were disappointed when Brookfield pulled out to focus on the Manhattan West site. http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/90554015/large.jpg A look at the model of both Brookfield proposals together... JT'sPhotos http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...17cec6e3_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...405553f0_b.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seriously, building a 2000 footer to overshadow the Empire State Building is just wrong. I mean, Midtown can have some density, but it should also have some common sense. The Empire State Building stands as the tallest in Midtown to show that it was the first to do so, the tallest in the world at the time, and I think it should retain that title for the next 30+ years or so. (I would've said 50+ years but by then I'd look like an idiot.) |
Why is 30+ any different that 50+
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.