HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 6:19 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
It's right here, a few posts up.

__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2012, 5:32 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It's right here, a few posts up.


That's not an actual design for a building I don't think, more of a placeholder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 10:19 PM
Theoryg Theoryg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 36
Wink I agree!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMIII View Post
Bad news ? It would be a disaster!

To Build new towers on railroads or warehouses is great, but to demolish pre-war towers to build new ones is simply outrageous. They should do the same as we do in Paris, you keep the wall and you change everything inside. I know it's easier to do with a 7 floors building than with a 50 floors tower, but hey, we have already walked on the moon. If they want to destroy towers from the sixties that's fine but I hope pre-war towers will be classified as historic monuments before it's too late. They are NYC's architectural treasures.

I wrote in a previous post that NYC is always looking forward to build its future which is really great, but it should never be at the expense of its glorious past.
I agree with that thaught, I think the old classic details and facades should be maintained and it might also make the "shock" of new giants minimal. I dont much care about new building in the east Midtown area. Its already too dense. My belief is that they can do no serious damage that hasnt already been done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 10:21 PM
Theoryg Theoryg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 36
Red face I always thought New York was...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
I would like to see modern versions of those projects being done here. We are witnessing a major transformation of the Big Apple, one that will continue to make it one of the best cities in the world.
preparing for the future in a unique way. I cant even consider seeing it under the current circumstances. I do agree that after 9/11 new proceedures need to be in place but I think it goes synonymous with its older decades ago legend. Still for now "revamp" and "rethink" is needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 12:27 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
That's not an actual design for a building I don't think, more of a placeholder.
Yes, it's just a placeholder.

There are no height limits with the rezoning. There are only FAR limits.

So a building could go as high as possible within the potential FAR envolope (up to 30 FAR).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 12:45 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
I'm surprised 33 is the highest existing FAR in NYC. I'd have though ESB would actually be quite a bit higher than that. Along with some other buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 2:18 PM
babybackribs2314 babybackribs2314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UWS, Manhattan
Posts: 1,728
Surprised noone has the images.

Here's my article on the rezoning.

http://www.yimbynews.com/2012/07/rev...-plan-for.html

& from the PDF

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2012, 1:02 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,945
Some feel the City's moving too fast (it's planned to be adopted next year), some too slow (but it won't go into effect until 2017 ).



http://observer.com/2012/08/midtown-...superscrapers/
Midtown Slowdown: Councilman Garodnick Asks City to Take Its Time on Rezoning Midtown for Superscrapers



By Matt Chaban
8/21/12

Quote:
Easy does it. That is the message from Councilman Dan Garodnick, echoing concerns of two Midtown community boards, that the Bloomberg administration is moving too fast in its plans to rezone Midtown East to allow for taller skyscrapers. The Councilman, who represents the eastern flank of Manhattan, applauded the plan in a letter to Planning Commish Amanda Burden last week shared with The Observer, but he worries to plan is so complex, it needs more time to be considered. The Department of City Planning argues there is enough time to get the job done before the Bloomberg administration is out in a year and a half.

Primarily, Mr. Garodnick wants the scoping session, when the framework is solidified, pushed back six months to March. In the letter, he also criticized plans to release an initial framework in the coming weeks, “before Labor Day—when many New Yorkers are totally disengaged from the political process.” The plan was to have the massive rezoning—both in space and scope—enter public review by the first quarter of next year, but pushing back scoping would likely push that into the summer or fall. The rezoning would almost certainly be approved by the next administration as a result.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...HKlBQvTdzBeTqL
A ‘Towering’ shame: Mike’s Midtown mess

By Steve Cuozzo
August 20, 2012

Quote:

Manhattan’s premier office district is increasingly obsolete — its buildings frozen in time by half-century-old zoning rules. But Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to finally up-zone the Grand Central area looks less like a fix than a way to set up a piggy bank to pay for future mayors’ “street improvement” follies. The area, full of buildings up to 70 years old, urgently needs larger new ones than current zoning allows. (Except through a review process so arduous it’s only been used once, rules from 1961 don’t permit buildings to be replaced with new ones of even the same size.)

But the city isn’t making it easy for landlords to get rid of the relics. If Bloomberg really wants to kick-start Midtown East rebuilding, all he has to do is say: You can now put up larger structures, period — no strings attached. Instead, he’s forcing developers to cough up big bucks on top of what are already the country’s highest construction costs — chiefly through something called a District Improvement Bonus, proceeds from which will go into a Pandora’s Box to fund future mayors’ political whims. The city wants the dough to remedy such horrible “pedestrian realm challenges” as “narrow sidewalks and bottlenecks in subway stations.” Hello, slush fund?

The rezoning sounds good. In 78 blocks between 39th and 57th streets, new buildings could have up to 60 percent more floor space, depending on the exact location. (The plan is slated for a City Council vote early next year.) But look at the catches:

* It won’t kick in until 2017. If change is as urgently needed as the city claims, why let East Midtown’s lousy buildings rot for five more years? Supposedly, the reason is so their redevelopment won’t conflict with the city’s Hudson Yards dream, but the areas are so different and remote that real-estate insiders say they’re not in competition.

* Although the rezoning is supposed to “streamline” things, the largest new buildings — the ones developers will most want to put up — still must undergo the city’s infamous land-use review procedure, a guarantee of delay and litigation. Maximum-size projects must also undergo micro-scrutiny over design and skyline impact.

* Worst of all, developers must kick back to the city to exercise their “right” to build larger. That’s what the DIB would be for.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2012, 1:51 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,945
They are talking of closing Vanderbilt Avenue as part of this plan, and they probably will.

But a dream of mine (it will likely never happen) would be for the City to close the Park Avenue ramp leading to and around Grand Central and creating a "high line-like" park there.
It would probably be my favorite space in the City, but it's just a dream.

The summer streets program gives us a preview...


christiNYCa





























__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2012, 5:45 PM
Chicano3000X Chicano3000X is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 88
It would be great if LA did this with strip malls.

Only thing that I hate about these plans is that new buildings will not have the same feel as old 1920s-30s. Just like LA, even if it gets taller, it will just look too sterile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2012, 11:28 AM
manchester united manchester united is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Some feel the City's moving too fast (it's planned to be adopted next year), some too slow (but it won't go into effect until 2017 ).



http://observer.com/2012/08/midtown-...superscrapers/
Midtown Slowdown: Councilman Garodnick Asks City to Take Its Time on Rezoning Midtown for Superscrapers



By Matt Chaban
8/21/12





http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...HKlBQvTdzBeTqL
A ‘Towering’ shame: Mike’s Midtown mess

By Steve Cuozzo
August 20, 2012
But I wish skyscrapers also in Clinton to West of the 8th Avenue !!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2012, 1:57 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
Only thing that I hate about these plans is that new buildings will not have the same feel as old 1920s-30s. Just like LA, even if it gets taller, it will just look too sterile.
Personally, I don't want to feel like I'm stuck in the 20's and 30's. It's a new century, I wanna live in it. But I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the rezoning plans. Over 90 % of it will remain untouched. What the rezoning does is add the possibility of additions.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 5:06 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,945
Well, the process has begun, no slowing down.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/scope.shtml

Quote:
Public Scoping Meeting on the East Midtown Rezoning and Related Actions
A public scoping meeting will be held on the East Midtown Rezoning and Related Actions on Thursday, September 27, 2012 in the Manhattan Municipal Building, Mezzanine level, 1 Centre Street, New York, New York, 10007; access through the North Entrance. The meeting will be held in two separate sessions with the first session starting at 2:00PM and the second starting at 6:00PM. Written comments are accepted by the lead agency until the close of business on October 9, 2012.


A look at potential sites the City believes would be redeveloped with the rezoning:






Some quotes from the Draft Scope...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/env_...raft_scope.pdf















__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 5:23 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Will View Post


I would make the entire area across the Avenue (building to building) one level like they are going to do with Times Square. The maroon area could be the pedestrian area. The green area could have non-moveable chairs, tables, and benches; water features (fountains, etc.); sculputural art; food kiosks, etc.

This is a far better idea than just turning the entire Avenue into a sidewalk. This would still give pedestrians twice the room they have with the existing sidewalks, but it would also give a reason to actually dwell ("loiter") there, and it would be much more visually attractive.
I agree with you, but normally you do just the opposite:



Put the tables for restaurants and cafes along the building edges so that activity can spill out of the buildings. Circulation can still take place in the middle. This also allows buildings to extend awnings over the tables, allowing them to be used for more months out of the year.
pic from thefoodblog.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 3:24 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,945
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2012...dtown-rezoning

St. Patrick's Cathedral Wants Right to Cash In on Proposed Midtown Rezoning





September 13, 2012
By Mathew Katz

Quote:
The Archdiocese of New York wants the city to let them leverage the empty space over St. Patrick's Cathedral to collect millions of dollars from developers — as part of a bid by the historic Fifth Avenue church to cash in on the proposed rezoning plan of East Midtown. The Archdiocese is spearheading an effort to convince the city to change the rules to let landmarked buildings sell the air rights — or the right to sell neighboring developers the ability to add height to their own projects — over their buildings.

City rules prohibit the landmarked 1878 church — or any landmarked building — from adding any additional square footage to their existing property. The rezoning rules would allow developers in Midtown East to build on top of existing buildings as well as to knock down buildings to erect taller ones — creating potentially billions of dollars in new construction. However, the Archdiocese would be blocked from profiting under the proposed new rules because landmarked buildings cannot be knocked down or built on.

"There has to be some way at some point for some benefit to be given to these buildings," said David Brown, the Archdiocese' director of real estate, at a joint meeting of Community Boards 4, 5 and 6. "The landmarks shouldn't be disadvantaged by it."

Community Board 5 estimates there are likely 30 landmarked buildings and interiors in the area, and several others with the potential to be landmarked before the new regulations go into effect. The archdiocese has several buildings in Midtown East, including St. Patrick's Cathedral at East 50th Street, and St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church on Park Avenue at East 51st Street. According to Brown, much of the air rights sales profits would go straight back into St. Patrick's, which is in the middle of a $180 million restoration.

The City Planning Department plans to host a meeting on Sept. 27 to determine the overall scope of the new zoning regulations. Community board members said the Archdiocese's proposal would help give the landmark buildings an incentive to support the zoning changes. "This would give something to the landmarks," said said CB5 member Ed Klimerman. "That's how you get paid, presumably, for something they're missing out on."
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 7:45 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,833
There are at least two significant Catholic churches in the rezoning area, both with potentially significant air rights.

St. Patricks Cathedral, obviously, but also St. Bart's, on Park Ave/51st.

They wanted to demolish the St. Bart's rectory and build a massive tower back in the 80's, but Landmarks stopped them. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, I believe. The church argued that only the church should be landmarked, and not the adjacent rectory.

If St. Barts can sell their air rights, you would get a huge tower in that general vicinity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 8:09 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
Put the tables for restaurants and cafes along the building edges so that activity can spill out of the buildings. Circulation can still take place in the middle. This also allows buildings to extend awnings over the tables, allowing them to be used for more months out of the year.
pic from thefoodblog.com
Except that for that you need restaurants and cafes that people actually want to frequent, and this area has few of those.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 11:47 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There are at least two significant Catholic churches in the rezoning area, both with potentially significant air rights.

St. Patricks Cathedral, obviously, but also St. Bart's, on Park Ave/51st.

They wanted to demolish the St. Bart's rectory and build a massive tower back in the 80's, but Landmarks stopped them. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, I believe. The church argued that only the church should be landmarked, and not the adjacent rectory.

If St. Barts can sell their air rights, you would get a huge tower in that general vicinity.
I like that sound of that.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2012, 1:18 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,945
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article.../INS/120919907

Midtown east rezoning: ‘Why wait?’

Quote:
Developers strongly support a Bloomberg administration plan to upzone a section of midtown but are unhappy with the pace of the process. “This is a watershed proposal,” one developer said, noting that the eastern part of midtown to be rezoned is one of the most desirable office districts anywhere but has seen little growth because “most developers have determined development there to be uneconomical.”

Meanwhile, other areas are gaining density by adding modern, energy-efficient space. The Department of City Planning is proposing July 2017 as the earliest date for the issuance of permits to build under the new zoning. But the developer said, “If it makes sense, why wait? Let’s go.”

Of course, what makes sense to midtown landlords could cost their West Side competitors a lot of dollars. The administration’s plan is to give the Related Cos. a chance to sign tenants for its Hudson Yards project, which has struggled to get off the ground in a sluggish economy. In other words, Hudson Yards is getting a head start. City planners prefer to use the term “sequencing.”

The rival developer was not enamored of the idea, declaring, “You’ve got to build where the demand is.” And the demand for space in midtown east will only increase when two major transit projects—the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access linking the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal—begin to serve customers later this decade. The city, for its part, is not just picking winners and losers. It has a lot riding on the success of West Side development—notably a projected increase in tax revenue that is being counted on to help pay for the $2 billion extension of the 7 train to 11th Avenue and West 33rd Street. Currently, the line terminates at Times Square.

In any case, city officials view the midtown rezoning timeline as reasonable, given that it takes years to assemble sites and prepare them for high-rise development.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2012, 2:34 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
But a dream of mine (it will likely never happen) would be for the City to close the Park Avenue ramp leading to and around Grand Central and creating a "high line-like" park there.
It would probably be my favorite space in the City, but it's just a dream.
Problem is that's the best driving route south from Midtown East or Park Ave (you can't turn left onto Lex, and 5th Ave is always jammed). It's fun to drive around, too... and not sure I'd hang out there surrounded by concrete unless they did some serious landscaping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.