![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malasadas.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsPerhaps lost to the national news in the made-up controversy of the "Not On Ground Zero and Not a Mosque" debate, is yesterday's 47-1 decision by the New York City Council to give the go-ahead to a new skyscraper development project: 15 Penn Plaza, a 67 story tall skyscraper which will sit on the site of the unlamented Hotel Pennsylvania across the street from Pennsylvania Station and Madison Square Garden.
But here's the rub -- the tower will top out at 1,216 feet, a mere 34 feet shorter than the roof of the Empire State Building (not counting the icon's antenna), and it will sit only 900 feet away...effectively blocking views of the Empire State Building from certain angles. The current owners of the Empire State Building argued that the new tower is "...an assault on New York City and its iconography" and they were backed by Community Board 5 which voted overwhelmingly to oppose the project. Their advisory role was overriden by the full city council with the backing of Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn who said, "Our skyline is always changing and growing. New York City is not a stagnant city."
The issue is interesting to me not merely as a resident of Manhattan, but as someone generally interested in the dynamic tension between preservation of historical and cultural heritage and the need for growth and change. Certainly, many places around the world would be uneasy at the thought of blocking or obscuring views of great cultural icons. It is hard to imagine, for example, a giant office development next to the Great Pyramids at Giza. The owners of the Empire State Building obviously hoped to preserve their place in the New York City skyline as the iconic and stand alone building in midtown:
They even argued for an "exclusion zone" that would disallow future development of buildings near the ESB that would challenge this view of Manhattan.
Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn talk about the dynamic skyline of New York and they are correct, but it is much more likely that they are interested in 100 million dollars of promised development, the construction jobs and furthering the city's goal of placing big development near transportation hubs. I have some sympathy with the argument of the owners of the Empire State Building -- lots of cities have lost lots of architectural heritage in the pursuit of development, and there is something iconic about approaching Manhattan from either the west or east and being greeted by the sight of the Empire State Building presiding royally over midtown.
But they've held that spot and that icon for 7 decades now -- and did so, at the time, by overshadowing other iconic buildings. Manhattan in the first few decades of the 20th century was in a skyscraper building frenzy. In 1909, the 700 foot Metropolitan Life Building became the world's tallest building looming over downtown:
A few year's later in 1913, the 792 foot tall Woolworth Building surpassed it as the world's tallest in the same part of town:
For a brief period in 1930, the 927 foot Bank of Manhattan Building held the title looming over downtown and eclipsing the Woolworth Building:
Later, even the Bank of Manhattan Building was overtaken downtown by the City Services Building:
The race for the world's largest building moved to midtown, however as both the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building raced towards completion in 1930 and 1931. The Chrysler, at 1,046 feet atop its spire, is sometimes difficult to see from some angles due to the Empire State and the recent additions of the New York Times and Bank of America buildings to the skyline, but it is a breathtaking tower:
The point of all of this, apart from linking to some really really pretty pictures of buildings in Manhattan, is to raise a question about the argument put forth by the owners of the Empire State, namely that allowing a tower to built close to it would cause great damage to the city's iconography -- at what point, if ever, is this a valid argument for halting or restricting development? Granting that Paris is unlikely to ever allow a development to obscure iconic views of the Eiffel Tower and that Mexico is not ever likely to replace Teotihuacan with an office park, what mysterious line exists that allows some architectural hertitage to be sacrosanct and others to be cast aside? At what level does anyone have the right to veto -- given that Community Board 5 really does not want the Penn Plaza project but the legislative councils in the city do?
And just for a final thought -- I find it ironic that the ESB owners are arguing this way, given that the Empire State Building was only able to be constructed via the demolition of the original Waldorf Astoria Hotel, considered by many to be a lost architectural gem of the late 19th century:
But here's the rub -- the tower will top out at 1,216 feet, a mere 34 feet shorter than the roof of the Empire State Building (not counting the icon's antenna), and it will sit only 900 feet away...effectively blocking views of the Empire State Building from certain angles. The current owners of the Empire State Building argued that the new tower is "...an assault on New York City and its iconography" and they were backed by Community Board 5 which voted overwhelmingly to oppose the project. Their advisory role was overriden by the full city council with the backing of Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn who said, "Our skyline is always changing and growing. New York City is not a stagnant city."
The issue is interesting to me not merely as a resident of Manhattan, but as someone generally interested in the dynamic tension between preservation of historical and cultural heritage and the need for growth and change. Certainly, many places around the world would be uneasy at the thought of blocking or obscuring views of great cultural icons. It is hard to imagine, for example, a giant office development next to the Great Pyramids at Giza. The owners of the Empire State Building obviously hoped to preserve their place in the New York City skyline as the iconic and stand alone building in midtown:
They even argued for an "exclusion zone" that would disallow future development of buildings near the ESB that would challenge this view of Manhattan.
Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn talk about the dynamic skyline of New York and they are correct, but it is much more likely that they are interested in 100 million dollars of promised development, the construction jobs and furthering the city's goal of placing big development near transportation hubs. I have some sympathy with the argument of the owners of the Empire State Building -- lots of cities have lost lots of architectural heritage in the pursuit of development, and there is something iconic about approaching Manhattan from either the west or east and being greeted by the sight of the Empire State Building presiding royally over midtown.
But they've held that spot and that icon for 7 decades now -- and did so, at the time, by overshadowing other iconic buildings. Manhattan in the first few decades of the 20th century was in a skyscraper building frenzy. In 1909, the 700 foot Metropolitan Life Building became the world's tallest building looming over downtown:
A few year's later in 1913, the 792 foot tall Woolworth Building surpassed it as the world's tallest in the same part of town:
For a brief period in 1930, the 927 foot Bank of Manhattan Building held the title looming over downtown and eclipsing the Woolworth Building:
Later, even the Bank of Manhattan Building was overtaken downtown by the City Services Building:
The race for the world's largest building moved to midtown, however as both the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building raced towards completion in 1930 and 1931. The Chrysler, at 1,046 feet atop its spire, is sometimes difficult to see from some angles due to the Empire State and the recent additions of the New York Times and Bank of America buildings to the skyline, but it is a breathtaking tower:
The point of all of this, apart from linking to some really really pretty pictures of buildings in Manhattan, is to raise a question about the argument put forth by the owners of the Empire State, namely that allowing a tower to built close to it would cause great damage to the city's iconography -- at what point, if ever, is this a valid argument for halting or restricting development? Granting that Paris is unlikely to ever allow a development to obscure iconic views of the Eiffel Tower and that Mexico is not ever likely to replace Teotihuacan with an office park, what mysterious line exists that allows some architectural hertitage to be sacrosanct and others to be cast aside? At what level does anyone have the right to veto -- given that Community Board 5 really does not want the Penn Plaza project but the legislative councils in the city do?
And just for a final thought -- I find it ironic that the ESB owners are arguing this way, given that the Empire State Building was only able to be constructed via the demolition of the original Waldorf Astoria Hotel, considered by many to be a lost architectural gem of the late 19th century:
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 16:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 16:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 17:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 17:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 17:22 (UTC)You elitist! :-)
Cool pics btw.
(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 08:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 17:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 18:02 (UTC)There were many many complaints about the World Trade Center when the final plans and models were shown to the public in 1964. The monolithic design of the two towers were considered an eyesore compared to the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building.
Ken Burn's appendix to his series on New York, "The Center of the World," detailing the history of the World Trade Center and skyscrapers, is a must see documentary! (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/index.html)
A lot of people outside of New York City don't seem to realize how actively the city was opposed to the construction of the original WTC, (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_int_pop_01_03_qt.html) the steel beams had to be brought in via the Hudson River, because traffic passes couldn't be obtained from the city.
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 18:59 (UTC)Speaking of made up controversies, did you hear that liberals are demanding that Glenn Beck "respect the place and time" of where he has chosen to have a public assembly and maybe he should move it elsewhere?
Because, you know, other people might be sensitive to the issues being discussed.
*nods*
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 19:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 23:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 01:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 08:42 (UTC)Do you want Beck to move the time/place of his rally, or do you support the building of the community center in downtown manhattan?
Or is option 3: be a hypocrite?
(no subject)
Date: 28/8/10 16:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 19:11 (UTC)Well, we may be going to fuck with the profile of Stonehenge to put in a new visitors centre. What d'yerthink?
If there is some mysterious dividing line it's probably pretty broad and subject to a collective, or at least a collaborative aesthetic. The views of St Paul's in London were protected: it is moot as to whether this is still the case. Times, opinions, and buildings change: though that some are worth preserving is without doubt.
Thanks for the pic of my favourite New York building. Sunrise and sunset on the Chrysler Building are images that still haunt me. (Actually it was the other way around, and a pretty good night, all in all.)
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 19:42 (UTC)Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 19:59 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 20:30 (UTC)And how can you hate art deco??
Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 20:54 (UTC)Heck they just spent 578 million to build a really cool looking school, and the Disney Cultural arts center is something only Disney could imagine.
Don't really hate art deco, it just looks better shorter, or "height challenged" if you prefer :D
Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 21:01 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 21:36 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 20:31 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 21:23 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 21:42 (UTC)(I moved out of L.A. years ago, but I do like have it close enough to do the SF comic show at the shrine)
Re: Yech!
Date: 26/8/10 23:08 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 27/8/10 00:34 (UTC)Re: Yech!
Date: 27/8/10 00:37 (UTC)I remember "Parker Hall" from the old Dragnet series in the 1970s.
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 19:48 (UTC)Have to say, me and my fellow study-abroaders in London felt it was weird how the views of St Paul's are so protected.
meh
Date: 26/8/10 19:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 20:37 (UTC)I grew up in the NYC burbs. You could see the skyline from where we lived. I spent a lot of time in Manhattan. And I have to say I never gave a shit about either the ESB or the WTC. I used to pass the ESB several times a week on my way to meetings. I took a piss in it once because it was there. Apart from that, I don't really see what the big deal is.
Yeah, it's historic. I guess. For a building that's only 79 years old. But this is New York we're talking about. Destroying beauty and meaning for the sake of cash is arguably a more important part of the city's heritage than a single overbuilt skyscraper. Fuck building next to it -- they should tear it down and sell the scrap to the Chinese.
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 22:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/10 23:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 06:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 06:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 08:40 (UTC)FTFY =)
(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 07:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/8/10 08:40 (UTC)