NEW YORK | One57 (Carnegie 57) | 1,005 FT | 75 FLOORS

[The North One]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Oh my god!!!! Look at that shadow it's casting on Central Park, all the trees will die and the yuppies sun bathing will be denied 10 extra minutes of sun while the shadow moves across the park!!! The horror!!!

I get that we hate NIMBY's because we're skyscraper enthusiasts and all, but I feel like this is a perfectly reasonable thing to be worried about.
The whole point of the park is that it's an oasis away from the concrete that engulfs the city and these insanely tall structures have the potential to ruin that. It may just be a few tall ones blocking the sun of the park for now, but what happens when there's dozens the size of One57 or taller? Hell, the proposals are already here and depending on the time of day the shadow could go almost half way across the park.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Hell, the proposals are already here and depending on the time of day the shadow could go almost half way across the park.

Are you also advocating for cutting down all the trees in Central Park?

Because most of Central Park is wooded and in permanent shadow, and so nearby buildings and their potential shadows are irrelevent. If shadow is now considered something inherently undesirable, I hope we get the chain saws ready...

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Are you also advocating for cutting down all the trees in Central Park?

Because most of Central Park is wooded and in permanent shadow, and so nearby buildings and their potential shadows are irrelevent. If shadow is now considered something inherently undesirable, I hope we get the chain saws ready...

WOW, because sunlight partially blocked by trees (which I don't know if you're forgetting need sunlight to thrive and be in the park in the first place) is the same as a massive monolithic solid wall of shadow, that's an absolutely ridiculous comparison and you know it, at least try to come back with something that can be argued.
Are you also suddenly forgetting the ponds and the huge field of grass that these buildings are also blocking sunlight from.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

WOW, because sunlight partially blocked by trees (which I don't know if you're forgetting need sunlight to thrive and be in the park in the first place) is the same as a massive monolithic solid wall of shadow, that's an absolutely ridiculous comparison and you know it.

All wrong. The trees cause permanent shadow, and the buildings cause temporary shadow.

So, again, if you have a problem with buildings casting temporary shadow on limited parts of Central Park, then you better have a problem with trees casting permanent shadow on the majority of Central Park. Most of Central Park is wooded, and has permanent shadows, year-round. The new towers only cast temporary shadows on small parts of the park, during certain times of the year.

I still don't get why "shadow" is something inherently bad, and why it should guide zoning and parks policy, but if you are of such a belief, you can't argue against tall buildings without arguing against the major causes of shadow in Central Park. It would be like arguing for prioritized medical treatment for a head cold for someone with a gunshot wound.

[The North One]

Yes, how silly of me, these areas are just so drenched in blackness by the trees that a solid overcasting wall of light would make no difference to enjoying the park.



This area would actually look alot brighter if the shadows of the buildings weren't blocking it. Note the dark tops of the trees.


Both pics:http://urbantimes.co/2013/01/develop...new-york-city/

Even in parts of more dense trees sunlight shines through, like have you never been to wooded area before?


http://www.dailyventure.com/photo/En...rom-6th-Avenue

I'm not claiming death to the skyscrapers, I just think developers should be more responsible when it comes to how their buildings affect public spaces.

[NYC GUY]

^^^

[The North One]

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

^^^

Please explain what you find so funny about what is above?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The North One

The whole point of the park is that it's an oasis away from the concrete that engulfs the city and these insanely tall structures have the potential to ruin that. It may just be a few tall ones blocking the sun of the park for now, but what happens when there's dozens the size of One57 or taller? Hell, the proposals are already here and depending on the time of day the shadow could go almost half way across the park.

Central Park has long been framed by skyscrapers. The towers in question we are talking about will cast longer shadows for briefer periods of time. But no one in the park is concerned about shadows. As a matter of fact, this time of year, the shade is welcome. On those cloudy winter days, when the park is covered in snow, and there are no sun rays in site, it is still a beautiful oasis. That fact that the air rights around the park are being sold and consolidated onto single sites means there will be more daylight, openings in the skyline. There's no legitimate concerns here. If people don't want to see skyscrapers, Central Park is not the place to be. But it is heavily wooded enough that you don't have to see them.

(older pics)

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by The North One

Please explain what you find so funny about what is above?

Because your argument is a bunch of crap.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by The North One

...the proposals are already here and depending on the time of day the shadow could go almost half way across the park.

The shadow study was made for the winter months starting September 21.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

The shadow study was made for the winter months starting September 21.

I don't think some members have ever taken a Biology or a Cell Bio class. Some of these flora/trees to not need constant sun exposure to survive. The trees will be fine. A little shadow is okay. This is just a reaction from the NIMBYS to stall anything that is remotely tall. Also keep in mind that the sun moves position during the day. Some of these shadows wind up receiving sunlight and shift position. Its all about the wavelengths and time people. These trees will get their precious sunlight. Its just stupidity essential Eveningsong, and we have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by photoLith

Because your argument is a bunch of crap.

I have to agree with you too. I think we can all conclude that some New Yorkers whine to much. Sunlight and shadows are a piss poor argument for being against developments. Developers already have to deal with enough crap in a city that is extremely hard to build on. As Mr.Stern mentioned in an interview, sometimes, it costs more to buy a property in Manhatten that it does to build a tower. These developers have a hard enough time as it is, and now a couple of whiney citizens complain about shadows and sunlight in an area that has been dominated by skyscrapers. Oooooo boy; Usually the ones who complain are .

Originally Posted by The North One

\
The whole point of the park is that it's an oasis away from the concrete that engulfs the city and these insanely tall structures have the potential to ruin that. It may just be a few tall ones blocking the sun of the park for now, but what happens when there's dozens the size of One57 or taller? Hell, the proposals are already here and depending on the time of day the shadow could go almost half way across the park.

The park is an oasis and has been for over a century. The shadows are not going to ruin that.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yes, how silly of me, these areas are just so drenched in blackness by the trees that a solid overcasting wall of light would make no difference to enjoying the park.

That's not at all what I wrote, but your pics confirm exactly what I wrote.

Most of Central Park is heavily wooded, and therefore bathed in some degree of permenant shadows, so arguing over temporary, seasonal building shadows layered on top of existing park shadows is kind of absurd.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Because your argument is a bunch of crap.

I've never been to central park so I guess I cant really judge on the matter. as long as the shadows don't have a huge affect during most of the year I guess it wont be an issue.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by The North One

I've never been to central park so I guess I cant really judge on the matter. as long as the shadows don't have a huge affect during most of the year I guess it wont be an issue.

They don't. The NIMBY argument shows shadows during winter almost at sunset. Its ridiculous.

[photoLith]

Oh my God, this shaddow shit is ridiculous. If you dont like skyscrapers then move out of Manhattan for crying out loud and move to the generic vapid suburbs of Houston or some crap.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Oh my God, this shaddow shit is ridiculous. If you dont like skyscrapers then move out of Manhattan for crying out loud and move to the generic vapid suburbs of Houston or some crap.

But think of the children!!!

[NYguy]

One of the things people like about Central Park is the dramatic backdrop of the city in the background. It wouldn't be the same without it. There will now be an even more incredible backdrop,
so in that sense, the developers are doing a service.

And as I mentioned earlier, I always end up loosing my sense of direction in the park at some point, but thankfully there are skyscrapers around to guide me.



xpressbus





Ian's





ccrrii





becca_person




And truthfully, it's the trees that provide the shade for Central Park. And they are beautiful as well.


Bev Goodwin

[NYguy]

Stunning...


mnwheatley

[EMArg]

Some shots of the One57 in this video:


• Video Link

[EMArg]

Next page ->