Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
The proboem is, the definition of "worthy" will change for each and every person. The Empire State Building was built and designed for the early 20th century. This one is being designed for the 21st century - which means a larger mass of tower rising into the sky. Personally, I prefer a sheer mass in skyscrapers.
|
I understand that viewpoint entirely but I don't think it should be used as an excuse for a project that belligerently ignores the complexity and nuance of the location and instead opts for the easy way out with an iminent, unbreakable, stubborn mass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photolitherland
The reason the highrises are located where they are, at least historically speaking, is due where the bedrock is located. Near the tip of Manhattan the bedrock is closer to the surface, and then where the other massing of skyscrapers are in midtown is where the bedrock is closest to the surface. But now due to new technology taller scrapers can go just about anywhere in Manhattan. Thats why there arent that many highrises around the ESB because it costs more to drill deeper to the bedrock in order to secure the foundation.
|
Eh actually it's more because NY outgrew downtown and the construction of a new transit hub at 42nd st. promoted a 'suburban' downtown growth. Midtown was once covered in brownstones more reminiscent of some Brooklyn neighbourhoods like Brooklyn Heights or Fort Greene but the shift in infrastructure is really what made Midtown. Really, there are skyscrapers everywhere, but the tallest ones in Midtown were built around the points of transit like Grand Central. The Chrysler Building was at full occupancy after construction and even through the Depression had low vacancy while the ESB was the 'Empty State Building' even well into the 60s. 34th st is today more of the gateway to Midtown but really was a much different universe from Midtown then.