NEW YORK | 220 Central Park So.| 952 FT | 70 FLOORS

[King DenCity]

^yeah pretty sweet. i just hope they keep on comin'

[Onn]

Ineed this is quite an amazing thing to have happen! By 2020 New York City is going to look totally different, and for the first time the Empire State Building won't be the centerpiece of the skyline anymore. Exciting times!

[chris08876]

^^^^

Hudson Yards will really stand out as it is going to look like a giant mass of supertalls or near supertalls. The ESB will still really standout too considering its 204' antenna which is pretty big and its 47' above sea level.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by Onn

Ineed this is quite an amazing thing to have happen! By 2020 New York City is going to look totally different, and for the first time the Empire State Building won't be the centerpiece of the skyline anymore. Exciting times!

it's going to be awhile before the ESB isn't the centerpiece. It's midtown's most recognizable icon and it probably wont be until the Penn Station and MSG area is redeveloped that the ESB will start to lose its prominence.
Nonetheless, we're witnessing a boom of building tall the likes of which the city has never seen.

[ILNY]

[Tectonic]

Could they do a two building combo here like 15 Central Park West?

[Perklol]

I think so. It might look similar to 15 CPW.

[Submariner]

They need to tear down all of those horrid condos in the background.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Submariner

They need to tear down all of those horrid condos in the background.

No chance in hell. Maybe one or two would be tear-down possibilities, but generally no.

And why are those buildings "horrid"? They're generally very attractive, and some are landmarked.

You realize you're looking at the back of the buildings, right? The back is only temporarily exposed, as 220 CPS is built.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No chance in hell. Maybe one or two would be tear-down possibilities, but generally no.

And why are those buildings "horrid"? They're generally very attractive, and some are landmarked.

You realize you're looking at the back of the buildings, right? The back is only temporarily exposed, as 220 CPS is built.

And I've seen them all from the front - horrible looking architectural abortions; like Gene Kauffman's ancestors drew them up back in the 60's.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Submariner

And I've seen them all from the front - horrible looking architectural abortions; like Gene Kauffman's ancestors drew them up back in the 60's.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I still think you don't even know which buildings you're talking about.

These Central Park South buildings are overwhelmingly from the 1920's, not the 1960's, are usually built of extremely high quality (limestone fronts and the like), and many are landmarked. Most of them aren't going anywhere.

The one building I see in the pic that's from the 1960's is on the right-hand side, and is considered one of the best residential buildings of its era. It's almost universally praised for the dramatic curve at CPS/7th.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're entitled to your opinion, but I still think you don't even know which buildings you're talking about.

These Central Park South buildings are overwhelmingly from the 1920's, not the 1960's, are usually built of extremely high quality (limestone fronts and the like), and many are landmarked. Most of them aren't going anywhere.

The one building I see in the pic that's from the 1960's is on the right-hand side, and is considered one of the best residential buildings of its era. It's almost universally praised for the dramatic curve at CPS/7th.

Perhaps I should have specified - buildings like the brown one right on the corner are, in my opinion, horrible. I'm not talking about tearing down the Essex house (and if it seemed as though my displeasure was directed at these buildings because of the backs of them, then I was incorrect) but bland brick nonsense like, say:

[vandelay]

Maybe half of the buildings on the CPS block with 220 are post-war, white or beige brick apartments that are out of character with the rest of CPS. I'd be glad to see them demolished and replaced with something better too.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by vandelay

Maybe half of the buildings on the CPS block with 220 are post-war, white or beige brick apartments that are out of character with the rest of CPS. I'd be glad to see them demolished and replaced with something better too.

Exactly. There is plenty of great architecture that needs to be preserved, but there is a lot of junk, too.

[McSky]

That brown building on the corner right by Columbus Circle (240 CPS) is landmarked, as is the Gainsborough Studios building just to the west of 220 CPS.

There are another two landmarks on the 58th side of that block: Engine Company No. 23 (215 W 58th) , and the former Helen Gould Miller Stable (213 W 58th, just to the east of the Firehouse). Here is a nice view of these two:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilio_guerra/4342793598/

[njcco]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Perhaps I should have specified - buildings like the brown one right on the corner are, in my opinion, horrible. I'm not talking about tearing down the Essex house (and if it seemed as though my displeasure was directed at these buildings because of the backs of them, then I was incorrect) but bland brick nonsense like, say:

Say what you might about those buildings, but most are condos and co-ops, and are home to many, many influential and successful people. They might feel differently than you about tearing those buildings down. I love how certain people who post here do not see these buildings as serving a purpose (such as being home to hundreds of people), but just as structures deserving only of demolition because they offend their oh-so-delicate architectural sensibilities.

Don't get me wrong, if an ugly building has fallen into disuse or is no longer viable economically, by all means, demolish it. But please differentiate between not liking a building's aesthetics and its viability as a going concern.

[LMich]

I was going to remark on the same thing, this really thoughtless and cavalier attitude where you don't even consider that people actually live in these places, and in this instance, places that cost quite a bit of money. Buildings exist for more than just our visual enjoyment. I know this is disappointing to some, but we don't live in SimCity. And, thank god for that considering some folks immature and underdeveloped views of the world.

[nygirl1]

Originally Posted by njcco

Say what you might about those buildings, but most are condos and co-ops, and are home to many, many influential and successful people. They might feel differently than you about tearing those buildings down. I love how certain people who post here do not see these buildings as serving a purpose (such as being home to hundreds of people), but just as structures deserving only of demolition because they offend their oh-so-delicate architectural sensibilities.

Don't get me wrong, if an ugly building has fallen into disuse or is no longer viable economically, by all means, demolish it. But please differentiate between not liking a building's aesthetics and its viability as a going concern.

Spot on! Let's demolish where people live!!! Let's do it because it visually displeases some kids on a skyscraper forum. I agree...let's displace people and get rid of their homes for something more architecturally more pleasing to me...even though I won't live in it or anywhere near it and ill just admire it in photos.

The logic of some people.

[vandelay]

It's a good thing those "influential and successful" people have their defenders on this skyscraper forum. If they had seen some of the cavalier remarks about demolishing their apartments their feelings might have been hurt.

The opinion against white brick buildings isn't even a controversial one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/ny...-age.html?_r=0

No one is calling for the rich residents to be kicked out on their bums. No one is driving a wrecking ball to CPS. There's absolutely zero need for offense taking and hyperventilating over these buildings, especially over some harmless remarks criticizing their aesthetics.

[Submariner]

Jesus Christ people...I'm not saying we should drag them out of their homes at gunpoint and tear them down. I'm saying I think they're ugly buildings and that I'd like if more aesthetically pleasing buildings were situated there.