Should Stuyvesant Town (NYC) be replaced?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by mousquet

It might've yet been better. I just read an interview of Christian de Portzamparc blaming on Le Corbusier's worldwide influence in that matter.

According to Portzamparc, Corbu thought streets were an obsolete concept, and he was obsessed with the idea of removing them from urban planning.

Hmm interesting. I wonder how nyc would look under his planning...

How would it even be implemented hypothetically?

[Kingofthehill]

and replace them with what? more of the boring, insipid (and likely, very $$$) glass condos springing up across other formerly marginal areas like lic, williamsburg, chinatown, along the waterfront, etc. the new stuff in alot of nyc has hardly been any better, or any more inspiring.

[chris08876]

Even though these are technically expensive projects, they do add to the area. Sometimes its good to have these scattered around. Gives certain areas character. I would not like to see them demolished, even if this is just a hypothetical.

[ThatOneGuy]

Absolutely not. One of the first modernist urban developments in the United States, and should be protected as such.

The windows should be replaced, though. AC units suck.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Something along the lines of this?:

http://jamesdunnettarchitects.com/wp...ut-Streets.pdf

Thx. This paper is informative to me, as I'm still ignorant about tons of things. But it rather focuses on land use more than on street function proper. I think I was excessive by calling Le Corbusier a "shitty urban planner" last night, just still frustrated by the outcome of his principles carried out too strictly.

His planning approach aimed at more livable homes and offices, providing some more comfortable daylighting even in relatively high density in particular, which is priceless. But most including myself feel like his solutions were too radical, especially in his aversion to traditional streets that are yet by far the best laying out to connect not only neighborhoods to neighborhoods, but also urban lots to one another. Also allowing friendly façade alignment for retail/shopping convenience. That Le Corbusier missed in his radical approaches.

In our contemporary time, planners have been working on more balanced and sophisticated solutions. Inner urban lots accommodate greenery, avoiding claustrophobia and lack of daylight, while their outer façades tend to remain aligned along streets. That is far much better than a more rigorously Corbusian neighborhood or whole district such that of la Défense in Paris.

And BTW, what the North Americans call 'commieblocks' is simply a total lack of texture and material diversity. Yet another appalling mistake not repeated in contemporary planning.

[mrsmartman]

I think they are visionary in shaping the housing complex in Asian cities like Hong Kong. People prefer living in development with clubhouse independent from the street.

[texcolo]

Maybe the projects on the Lower East Side should be upgraded to 'Hong Kong style' apartment blocks? Would that lower the cost of housing in Manhattan?



Would it be fair to say, that it's the government ran projects, and not necessarily the building design and layout that give housing projects their lousy reputation?

OR...

Towers in a park warehousing lower to middle class residents is ok, but warehousing the poor not so much???

[mrsmartman]

Garden housing is less crowded.

[Jasoncw]

Considering how overwhelming most of NYC is, I'd think that a more openly spaced neighborhood would be appreciated.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

and replace them with what? more of the boring, insipid (and likely, very $$$) glass condos springing up across other formerly marginal areas like lic, williamsburg, chinatown, along the waterfront, etc. the new stuff in alot of nyc has hardly been any better, or any more inspiring.

I agree wholeheadedly. Sameoldsameold amounts to buildings whose glass shells will need to be replaced sooner than the brick veneeer on these 55+ yr old buildings. These type buildings had very little character compared to the tenements they replaced but there is a warmth to the brick that surpasses the shiny cold glazing of newer condos. They are also a silly alternative to older architecture in terms of energy savings. All show, no substance.

[599GTO]

Can't stand it. Looks too impoverished and oppressive. It needs to be razed and turned into a modern commercial & residential complex. Battery Park City East.

Developers did a pretty good job with Battery Park City..




Or it could be a Hudson Yards East

[Chase Unperson]

It would be a huge opportunity to do a historic redevelopment. Hire a team of the worlds greatest architects and landscape designers to design and build 15 1000 foot condo buildings all different but all around a shared concept set in transcend grounds.

[texcolo]

Battery Park City's great, but how affordable is it?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by texcolo

Battery Park City's great, but how affordable is it?

Affordable?



Pretty expensive area. Great place to live, but you need to make a good income to live their. Mitt Romney agrees btw.

Stuyvesant Town is much cheaper.

[matthew6]

Originally Posted by sbarn

I imagine the units in the center must be more expensive? They seem to be considerably insulated from the density of the rest of the city.

[10023]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Affordable?

Pretty expensive area. Great place to live, but you need to make a good income to live their. Mitt Romney agrees btw.

Stuyvesant Town is much cheaper.

As is generally the case with real estate, this is mostly to do with location.