HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 8:46 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
quite the opposite. The pencil towers are creating much more visual interest in a skyline which previously was relatively table-top and uninteresting beyond it's sheer scale.

People who dislike them dislike them for "change" reasons alone. NYC Is a city that has always evolved and changed, and the ~1980-2010 period was the anomaly in the city with it's relatively slow pace of growth and change. These new towers are new, but they are not bad, and they cannot ruin a skyline which has always been in itself a living thing which changes and evolves, sometimes dramatically.
orrrrr, i personally dont like them cause they dont look particularly good. Im not adverse to change at all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 8:48 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,486
One thing is for sure, they're fleecing New York City tax payers. Billionaires paying basically nothing in residential property taxes.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 8:59 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Also, 432 Park looks like it's aging badly to me. Does it look that way to anyone else? It's only a decade old but it's starting to look a little dingy from the outside.
It has looked bad from the day it was built. Doesn't help that it's so big you can see it from every corner of the city. The exposed concrete is getting dirty so it's starting to look like Ponte City.

It's also riddled with flooding, noise and safety issues, horribly built building.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 9:58 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,597
I don't think the skylines of either Lower Manhattan or Midtown have been ruined. There is so much to love--it would take a lot more than some ugly, enormous 1970s refrigerators or tacky, twiggy 2020s pipe cleaners to truly ruin them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 10:44 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Onwards and upwards is what I think!
I agree with this.

And a lot of them aren't really that skinny. They add a new dynamic. It definitely gives the city a more futuristic look especially given the height.

I still think Lower Manhattan has the best skyline but at the same time, DoBro is catching up. It has its unique look to it. Good symmetry for now.

NYC essentially has 6 skylines.

1) DoBro
2) Lower Manhattan
3) Midtown
4) LIC (Long Island City)
5) The rogue province of Jersey City
6) The Territory of Miami (the invasion has begun already via New Yorkers)

The way things are going, LIC will eventually fuse with DoBro along the East River.

IMO, Hudson Yards has added the most in terms of dynamics and aesthetics. It really depending on the angle is overpowering but in a unique way, and we still have Phase II to go along with all the proxy developments that will spur.



Credit: Peter Moy




NYC and the Whitestone Bridge by Edgar Omar, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 10:51 PM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
quite the opposite. The pencil towers are creating much more visual interest in a skyline which previously was relatively table-top and uninteresting beyond it's sheer scale.

People who dislike them dislike them for "change" reasons alone. NYC Is a city that has always evolved and changed, and the ~1980-2010 period was the anomaly in the city with it's relatively slow pace of growth and change. These new towers are new, but they are not bad, and they cannot ruin a skyline which has always been in itself a living thing which changes and evolves, sometimes dramatically.
What he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 11:07 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,691
I'm fine with the skinny towers too. I don't think they've ruined the skyline at all. All skylines could use more skinny towers in fact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 11:08 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,167
DoBro is Downtown Brooklyn? I hate that Why not just say Brooklyn? It's not like there are really multiple Brooklyn skylines of note.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2022, 11:19 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
As far as the skinny towers go, Central Park Tower is the least offensive. At least it has some massing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 12:01 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
DoBro is Downtown Brooklyn? I hate that Why not just say Brooklyn? It's not like there are really multiple Brooklyn skylines of note.
NoHo!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 12:08 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
As far as the skinny towers go, Central Park Tower is the least offensive. At least it has some massing.
We will be bringing in some thick ones to the party soon. 270 Park, Penn15, 175 Park, most of the Penn Station District towers within the next decade and many more.

NY also builds thick. Some of these skinnies will be drowned out in time. If it ain't over 1400', it'll get lost in the forest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 12:11 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
I love so much although I’m still getting used to me.

If someone showed me those pics in 2010, I’d say it was from a futuristic movie set in the 2060’s or later.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 1:09 AM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,041
I think downtown's skyline is more problematic with the fat towers because they built the so many tall ones on the waterfront. 55 Water Street and the 3 towers next to it are just awful, in my opinion. Midtown will be fine as the skinny residentials are in the process of being balanced somewhat by the new JPMC and new office towers planned like 175 Park Ave beauty.. And talking about fat towers, midtown has quite of few that I don't think mesh well with the skyline, like One Penn Plaza (my opinion). I have mixed feelings on Hudson Yards; I'll see if phase 2 makes it more interesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 1:58 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
I am mostly negative on the pencil thin boxy ones. From many miles away they look like industrial smokestacks. They dwarf the classics like Chrysler, Empire State, etc. They remind the population of how the billionaires look down on the serfs. There are a few that are better designed, with tapers. Anyway, they are there, so learn to love them.

Now that the econ is slowing, and the Russian oligarchs aren't able to buy, the construction pace may slow to a crawl for a while. We have seen peak "pencils" for this cycle perhaps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 2:16 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
A Man In Dandism
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
I love so much although I’m still getting used to me.

If someone showed me those pics in 2010, I’d say it was from a futuristic movie set in the 2060’s or later.
Agreed. As great as it was, the NYC skyline was starting to look a bit dated. With the latest crop of towers, it looks more modernized like some of the Asian skylines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 2:44 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
so learn to love them.

Now that the econ is slowing, and the Russian oligarchs aren't able to buy, the construction pace may slow to a crawl for a while. We have seen peak "pencils" for this cycle perhaps.
Russian oligarchs have never been a significant share of buyers in NYC, or any U.S. market. This isn't Monaco.

NYC luxury towers are overwhelmingly local buyers. Actually almost entirely local buyers on the Upper West and Upper East sides, and in Brownstone Brooklyn.

And you have the housing market reversed. The superluxury housing market was very slow, for years, until 2021. It was booming pre-2016 or so, but slow until recently. There's been very minimal product, and so a high end construction boom is likely in the coming years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 5:47 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,687
Pencil towers are silly looking and just bad penis architecture. But they’re worse for their useless function:full floors to be sold to Saudi Princes and Russian Oligarchs to own and NEVER occupy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 6:01 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Yeah those towers are awful. Do they all have to be so boring architecturally? I guess you can't do much with the limited space.
Nice architecture would require not trying to extract every last cent of space and trying to get in as many billionaires on top of each other without collapsing: the very reason why they’re as tall as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2022, 6:07 AM
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,350
Eh. I’ll take them over the chunkiness of Hudson Yards. I appreciate the designs were built from the necessity of not having a large footprint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2022, 9:30 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
From far away, the skinny towers give the skyline a Gotham-y look and look great in silhouette. They make the skyline more unique IMO. But I understand why many find them ridiculous.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.