# Wake up, Manhattan



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

even if NYC never adds another skyscraper, it looks great to me.
paris is historic, london is historic, new york is historic. you shouldnt press these cities to change- let them take it at their own pace.


----------



## noob(but not really) (Feb 3, 2007)

czm3 said:


> We'll see in 2012


We'll see that it's ugly. :bash:


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

noob(but not really) said:


> We'll see that it's ugly. :bash:


To each their own. I always thought the twins were eyesores.


----------



## noob(but not really) (Feb 3, 2007)

It is their simplicity that made them so beautiful. 

They showed that you don't have to make weird curvy buildings or go post-modern to make good looking buildings.

Just seeing these two big rectangular buildings side by side was awesomenss.

:cheers:


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

noob(but not really) said:


> They showed that you don't have to make weird curvy buildings or go post-modern to make good looking buildings.


Were people even building that way in the early 70s??

AFAIK everybody was building boxes back then...


----------



## noob(but not really) (Feb 3, 2007)

I know, but they transcended that era, and really stood out as timeless and brilliant.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

Not that I didn't love the twins but they weren't really all that attractive. That is subjective, though. The awe factor they produced until they were destroyed is what made them and imo it is as simple as that. 
The vertical facade was neat, but the real beauty was at it's base with arches. Other than that they were 1360 foot tall grey boxes, one with a giant antennae. The Plaza, while it hosted many cool events, and was gigantic, was a gloomy and depressing spot. The surrounding buildings were nothing special at all. The Marriot? Was the ugliest looking thing about the World Trade Center, and Seven World Trade, with that ugly doodoo color.. The iconic impact was the beauty in them but I think some of you guys get carried away even if it's your opinion. 
The new plan while it doesn't include twins, really is quite stunning all in all. The presense will be larger, the memorial will be much more open and pleasing than the dark, depressing plaza it is replacing. I just can't conceive why people dislike this thing... Oh yes I can! It's not the twin towers and people are huge fking babies about it and will never accept anything, no matter how granduer and elegant they appear. Nothing will make those folks happy except twins.

This article blows btw.


----------



## noob(but not really) (Feb 3, 2007)

^^ Sounds like you gradually, and grudgingly got over it.


The fact that it was 'depressing' could've been remedied. They didn't have to be destroyed and replaced by something else.

They were a great example of modernism, much better looking than anything of that era. And you know it.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

Oh I never said that they HAD to be destroyed and replaced by something else. The fact is that they were destroyed and are now being replaced by what I believe to be something much better despite the tragedy that occured. 
They were a terrific example of modernism but if you look to the east of them so are about a dozen other examples.. Park Avenue has got some great examples. Imo they didn't come close to seagram or Lever.. and those buildings were like 1/3 at best the height of the twins.


----------



## Stratosphere 2020 (Sep 15, 2002)

noob(but not really) said:


> It is their simplicity that made them so beautiful.
> 
> They showed that you don't have to make weird curvy buildings or go post-modern to make good looking buildings.
> 
> ...



When the twin towers were presented, New Yorkers were overall negative about them. When they were completed, a large percentage of New Yorkers viewed them as eyesoars. The love for the twin tower grew over time, but not much to say that the majority of New Yorkers appreciated them up to 9-11. But I will bet if 9-11 did not happen, New Yorkers would rather tear down the twin towers and have a nice skyscraperreplace it.

I do not believe that many people like the twin towers due to their simplicity, but because of the tallness and power they showcased. They represented America's capitalism and global might in capitalism. People are overall drawn to those and objects that showcase power.


----------



## noob(but not really) (Feb 3, 2007)

^^ Well yeah, I _did_ say they were big.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Yes their size was impressive. I wouldnt go to the extent of saying that prior to 911 people wanted them torn down, but few people would have cited them as their NYC favorites.

The new project is huge, and will make a much larger impact on the skyline than the twins did. 1WTC, 2WTC and 3WTC will all be taller than the ESB, and the others will be impressive as well. When I look to lower Manhattan from here, 7WTC just towers over the surrounding area. To think that all of the new towers will dwarf 7WTC just seems exciting. Unfortunately, we'll be waiting for a while. 

Either or, the author of the article didnt need to leave midtown to realize that NYC has new and modern side by side with every other style from the 19th & 20th century. I suspect that Tom Dyckhoff might be from LA.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

What an annoying writing style.


----------



## urban_addict (Nov 29, 2005)

SCL said:


> This article is stupid. What is the city supposed to do? Knock down all it's art deco buildings and create taller, super modern glass and steel structures? Manhattan has almost no undeveloped land. It is what it is. Deal with it.


Well not that this is a great idea but you can always build on top of those buildings... art deco below on street level and glass and steel in the heavens.


----------



## urban_addict (Nov 29, 2005)

And in response to the WTC Twin Towers... They were very ugly. Plain grey boxes. But what I wouldn't do to have them back. They are iconic.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

New York City actually has a strong anti-development current to it. Think about it - the average rent is $2,000 for an apartment in Manhattan, demand for new, Hong Kong-style apartment towers is enormous, and yet much of the island is dominated by ugly, old, low-slung brick buildings. I'd like to see development that helps fill out the huge gap between the midtown skyline and the downtown skyline. But anti-development forces in NYC have kept the market from doing this.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Monkey said:


> I don't agree with the article at all. In recent years New York has been building more skyscrapers than ever before in its history. Once the new World Trade Center is completed Downtown will regain and even surpass the skyline it had before September 11th. There are new supertalls on the way in Midtown too. I think the quality of design in New York is certainly higher than in Shanghai and probably Hong Kong too. Hong Kong may have a more dramatic panorama - at least by night - but New York will always have the best collection of skyscrapers of any city in the world.


The thing with the author or this article is that for him healthy urban growth means continuous transformation. It is true that the new buildings going up right now in NY will not radicalise the skyline like past constructions in the 30's did for example. But the city doesn't need to be constantly mutating to exist and do well, this is what the author doesn't understand. New York doesn't need to be a Shanghai-bis.


----------



## Brighter Hell (Aug 23, 2003)

SCWTC4 said:


> well. searching on skyscraperpage i found theese numbers:
> 
> from 2000 to 2007 new york build 292 highrises ; for comparision dubai builds 290 , hong kong 174, chicago 139 and shanghai 128
> 
> ...


In the same period Beijing built 109, Vancouver 146, Moscow 188, Toronto 219, and one New York beater: Tokyo had 429.


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

tablemtn said:


> New York City actually has a strong anti-development current to it. Think about it - the average rent is $2,000 for an apartment in Manhattan, demand for new, Hong Kong-style apartment towers is enormous, and yet much of the island is dominated by ugly, old, low-slung brick buildings. I'd like to see development that helps fill out the huge gap between the midtown skyline and the downtown skyline. But anti-development forces in NYC have kept the market from doing this.


What are you talking about? Firstly, your views on old New York buildings is entirely subjective. The majority appreciates them for their unique and indeed beautiful architecture, that sets NYC apart historically. This is what actually _stimulates_ demand from wealthy tenants. It is why historical areas of all developed cities command the highest rents. If you want high rise condo towers go to the lower east side where they are abundant, if you want the whole place to have Hong Kong style apartment towers - go to Hong Kong.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

Table you know very little about what you speak of. The area between midtown and lower Manhattan has been labeled the gap not because nimbyism stops it. While that is a problem everywhere in Manhattan, the area below Midtown and north of Lower Manhattan is where the ground cannot handle skyscrapers.. the bedrock is much stronger everywhere else.. see the Shanghai is sinking thread for further information on why it may not be such a smart idea. The buildings wouldn't last very long, it would be near impossible for the ground to withstand the weight of 986708970987 highrises in the village. Also I am not a nimby but even I do not want to see the neighborhoods inbetween the cbd's of NYC transformed. Even in a city like New York there is more than just skyscrapers that makes it cool.


----------

