I’d prefer not to see this. This tower is lame, and the existing building is nice.
I agree, it would be a shame.
Agreed that it’s not the most inspired design, although I think Juul-Hansen has earned the benefit of the doubt, since his projects tend to come out looking great. My understanding of the article is that this is just an RFP submission, not an actual chosen design, is that correct?
Whatever does rise here, I am in favor of projects that bridge the “skyline gap” (obviously the vast majority of the SoHo/Greenwich/Flatiron area is going to remain lowrise, but it will only take a handful of 700-footers to visually tie Downtown and Midtown together.)
Don’t worry about the design, it was for an RFP and this was not final. But whatever was chosen probably has a similar envelope.
That’s good to know. I’d be willing to lose that building for something tall and good.
Yeah this is bound to change design wise. But the foresight into all of this when it comes to towers is that conventional neighborhoods that have been predominantly low to mid rise are starting to see the spread of Lower Manhattan. Places like LES and Chinatown.
With land prices the way they are, and with the demand, in time, even those neighborhoods that seem untouchable will start to see towers. Remember, if its not landmarked, its gone.
I agree, there should be some kind of proposal in which neighborhoods that are predominantly low-rise (6.5 FAR mostly) like SoHo, Chinatown, NoLIta, NoHo and the Villages can transfer their huge amounts of still available air rights, let say to either Midtown or Lower Manhattan. Maybe an FAR bank from where they can be purchased and applied to those designated areas… In this scenario the low-rise/anti high-rise neighborhoods can maintain their characteristic urban fabrics.
I agree, Emoglez.
I think it’s essential to preserve these neighborhoods, they give so much character to the city plus they are major tourist attractions that could be lost with excessive development.