Architecture Geeks Pissed About Big Mack's Attack

1.

why tear down these beatiful townhouses, grand central is in a much primer location, why not tear that down.

2.

no one should be allowed to tear those down. that is totally apalling.

3.

that would be a crime.

4.

I have always wondered why the Landmarking folks don't focus on some of the midtown commerical distrcits. Nothing on 5th ave south of 59th is landmarked. Nothing on 57th st is landmarked. Why hasn't something like these beauties been landmarked.

5.

Did he buy the townhouses? or emminent domain?

6.

These townhouses have been altered from their original design on the lower floors anyway. Change happens. In non-residential areas, the scale of buildings can't be locked in at what was appropriate 100 years ago.

7.

yes they can #6, its easy, landmark the buildings

8.

Sorry 7, the grammer was wrong, but the sentiment was right. They SHOULDN'T freeze building which have already been altered. NY has always changed and grown over time. Accept and move on.

9.

ha, I can tell who wrote that post without looking...

10.

sorry #8, landmark the buildings and preserve this piece of the past, accept it and move on.

11.

ah yes, the parrot of the RE industry... "change is inevitable! squawk!! just let developers do whatever they want!" (which seems to be the motto of this administration)

12.

we ised to let the developers do whatever they wanted, that resulted in the destruction of the old Pennsylvania Station, and its replacement the beautiful MSG compelex and the more beautiful new penn station, and it almost led to the destruction of grand central. the landmarking commission was set up to deal with greed just like this.

13.

Yeah, fuck it. Let's just tear down all the old, beautiful historic buildings and build new garbage in its place. In fact, maybe NYC should go the route of Houston and abolish zoning altogether and just go nuts. That'd be TITS.

14.

Wah, wah, wah! Only old is good. Bring back the horse and buggy!

15.

Its funny. I agree about keeping our unique architecture and history alive. But not one person can say anything about the history of these buildings. Everyone loves to wish every building in NYC had a democratic process as far as their existance and that they had some kind of control. The only empowerment is the landmarks commission but of course there has to be a balance. If the commission overuses its power and landmarks the entire city, then what? These buildings will need to have a true historic value other than they hold on to an old look b/c lets face it, it is a very large and dense business district. I would love to see these buildings stay too but i also support a free economy and capitalism to a degree. I think the issue here isnt that people are against these buildings being destroyed but they are against what they know will replace it due to this particular developers past projects.

16.

Perhaps one needs to live in a city where almost all buildings are less than 30 years old to appreciate how an eclectic mix of old and thoughtfully designed new buildings creates a higher quality of life for city dwellers. Try living in Dallas or some other 4th rate city where everything is glass and steel and incredibly bland. Once these old structures are gone, they are gone forever. Certainly not every old building merits preservation, but I think all the structures in the picture above deserve serious consideration for landmark status, regardless of fancy provenance. While real estate should be put to the highest and best use, the highest and best use may have already been accomplished.

17.

Many of you seem to miss one of the central points of the WNY post: This isn't about preserving any old structure to ward off change. The site deserves a landmark. That landmark could have been an iconic 900+ foot tower, but instead it's going to be a run-of-the mill cheap, glass box. And if the choice is between that and the Drake (+townhouses), I'd rather see the latter stay.

18.

I don't think these buildings are up to landmark standards, attractive though they may be. Unfortunately, midtown will just have to continue degenerating into one big psychotic glass wall.

19.

cmon guys a duana reade would look much better there then those old townhouses. oooh or maybe and H&M.

20.

This horrific act proves that Harry Scmucklowe is a greedy philistine.

21.

There's no accounting for taste nor for greed, but the fact is that New York has plenty of gorgeous townhouses.

There are fewer and fewer of them in midtown manhattan, true, but the alternative to replacing townhouses in midtown Manhattan with high-rise condos and office towers is to increase the cost of housing and offices in Midtown in the name of preservation and aesthetics.

Development is not inconsistent with aesthetics, nor does it mean that we must surrender everything of historical value in the city.

It boggles my mind that there are people who oppose any new buildings in NYC under any circumstances. My experience is that they tend to be people who have very cheap central housing.

22.

Macklowe has a record of illegally tearing down buildings. Better keep a close eye on these.

23.

I don't give a rat's ass if those townhouses have been 'altered' over the years. They're still beautiful, architecturally significant buildings. They should be saved! It's really a shame that it's too late for The Drake, another beautiful old hotel destroyed. Damn those greedy developers!

24.

But no one seems to be saying here what seems obvious to me: that the whole appeal of certain neighborhoods where all this development is happening, are the very buildings they want to tear down! No one wants to go back to the horse and buggy, so stop saying ridiculous things like that. I just wish that the character of a building added more substantially to the cost per square foot. Then guys like Macklowe would pay attention.