Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubadour
You know what else will never happen in NYC? Closing Times Square to cars. Nope, never happen. Totally impossible. God Hath Spoken.
Oh, I'm dreaming! What a horrible thing to do! Let's all just have lobotomies and sell pork-belly commodities, because obviously we have no say in shaping the future. You might as well say "No soup for you!" 
Yeah, it's a city that turned an elevated railway into a park - a move received with nearly universal acclaim and adulation, for many reasons including the fact that it provides public space with a higher-up view of the city: The exact concept I'm saying should and will be explored further. But as we all know, cities never, ever build on success - especially not New York City, which always bails on ideas immediately after they prove valuable and popular. Which is why it only has one skyscraper, and has never once extended its original subway system. Right? Because obviously building subways is a lot easier than building a platform with some grass and trees on it, right?
Or...and I know this is an obscenely radical idea, but bear with me...the people and businesses that like the High Line park could ask the relevant authorities to extend it, and the authorities could do so. Shocking idea, I know.
You mean, somewhere like a city that just turned a stretch of elevated railway into a public park?
Right - build an elevated park in a city that doesn't have anything worth seeing yet, isn't cramped enough that people would appreciate it, isn't paved enough that the extra greenery is necessary, and would be equally without traffic or purpose, but avoid all cities where the opposite is true because that might be hard. Brilliant.
So let me see if I have this right: In your mind, New Yorkers are A-OK with living in a city full of skyscrapers, in urban canyons where access to sunlight is already somewhat restricted - in fact, many like that environment - but would get up in arms in outrage if someone proposed skinny little ribbons of greenery winding among those skyscrapers, allowing high pedestrian vantage points, fresh air, and better sunlight than would be available at street level anyway...all because, as also happens when you plant trees, less of the sunlight would reach the ground? This is your reasoning? |
No need to be so sarcastic. Everyone has an opinion.
First of all, they didn't close TS to cars, that is fallacy. There are cars right beside all the plazas. It is not a closure to traffic but more like a reduction that doesn't go far enough IMO. It is hardly Shanghai's Nanjing Road. A good idea, but don't pretend the place isn't still a congested nightmare.
You know there is no way in hell NYC nimbies would allow overhanging structures throughout the city. Just last week their were people bursting out crying and shaking with anger over plans to close a stretch of street to cars on the UES. Nimbies got Tour Verre cut down for these very reasons. Don't pretend that Nimbies don't hold immense power. I highly doubt your ideas, although interesting, would every be implemented throughout the city. I can only see this happening through blighted or industrial areas. There is basically no room for such things on the narrow congested streets of NYC and people would cry bloody muder that such structures would represent eye-sores and destroy the street-scape, block light, etc.. Remember, many people in NYC don't like the towering canyons, they would probably prefer if NY looked like Paris. They may just live in NYC because of their job or their desire to be into the center of everything. They don't necessarily all like the urban structure of the city and many are willing to prevent a worsening of the things they already detest such as what your idea entails. Otherwise, why would you see such a vehement opposition to towers like Verre? People care about these things and rich people have influence in Manhattan.
You're idea would most likley be too difficult to implement in busy areas like midtown or downtown NYC. It may also reduce pedestrian life on the street and retail sales may go down if you allow people to use these new vertical park lanes to walk around the city. I'm sure there would be much opposition from business owners. People on these parks may have more light/air, but that is to the detriment of people below. That is the problem. No matter how narrow, it is still not going to happen. As I sad before, turning elevated highways into another highline might work. An even better idea however is to create pedestrian shopping aras out of places with narrow streets like Soho or Villages. However, the residents just won't have it and that to me shows lack of civic vision from all parties involved. I want to see more innovative urban design for NYC, to see it become a more pleasant city to walk around. I see no reason why a dense walking city like Manhattan needs to be so congested with cars. Where's the innovation?
Manhattan's vertical space is spoken for by private development. No private property owner would be willing to go to the expense to retrofit its vertical floors or sacrifice views for the construction of multiple levels of walkway outside its windows.