NEW YORK | 260 South Street | 809 + 728 FT | 73 + 67 FLOORS

TKDV :wink:

1 Like

TKDV* :sweat_smile:

The visuals aren’t that pretty (just because i put them on top of the bridge and didn’t take the time to edit them “into” the photo), but I’m glad my stuff can help where possible.

If these two have a nice façade I think they’ll turn out great, the current façade pattern is kind of meh atm.

3 Likes

I don’t really understand this conversation. Who cares if a tower blocks something from view? Has nothing to do with anything in the zoning code. It’s just another NIMBY excuse to try and block as-of-right housing from being built. And obviously every major structure blocks some view corridors. The Brooklyn Bridge, when it was built, blocked a ton of view corridors. So what?

Views may not have much practical value but they are are a part of a city’s iconography (and in a city with such a lucrative tourism industry, iconography can actually have a significant economic value.) Even from a purely emotional point of view, I understand not wanting to lose them, especially a view as serendipitous and unique as this postcard-perfect framing of ESB by the Manhattan Bridge. But let’s be real. Fighting to protect a view that’s already been photographed millions of times — at the expense of new housing during an unprecedented housing crisis — is honestly sociopathic.

I would generally be in favor of some kind of view corridor system like they have in London for a handful of truly iconic views (ex: ESB and Chrysler from the top of One WTC). Rather than a slippery slope, I think codifying which corridors are protected would actually simplify the process of fighting NIMBYs — if a particular view has not been deemed worthy of protection in the code, then there are no legal grounds to fight a development.

6 Likes

@crawdad Your comment seems kind of harsh (even though I know it’s not trying to be), but I’m pretty sure DeSelby was just trying to confirm the veracity of the claims the the MAS made because they never showed any physical evidence to prove that the development would block that view, important or not, it was just an observation. There was no argument to be made as the anyone wanting the view corridor to be saved or view corridors to be made.

Kind of like myself, DeSelby, and @MarshallKnight have mentioned as above, some view corridors wouldn’t even make sense to have set in stone to protect a certain view, because most of the city wasn’t built with that logic in mind, like some of the examples in London were. It is just simply purely coincidental that this view even existed because no where has it been said that Moisseiff specifically put the bridge tower in that exact location for the ESB to be seen. If it was an intentional design decision I would see more the need to preserve the view, but it wasn’t, so arguments made by advocated to save it are null because there would never be any more developments if that logic was followed as every new & old development has impeded views in the city for years now. The only reason I’d see any complaining is that this development probably won’t be affordable and that’s a much better argument for people to use than to not build it because a view.

1 Like

Yeah, what TKDV said–I was just curious and made it very clear I don’t agree with the NIMBY argument about views. TKDV was kind enough to make the renders that MAS failed to provide–nothing more. I don’t see what the problem is, nobody here is saying these towers should be stopped because they block a view, in fact thankfully they’re already approved and ready to rise.

3 Likes

Speaking of, do they have an estimated time for start of demolition and completion of the 2 towers?

There’s not really anything to demolish more than just tear up and excavate since the towers are being built on a parking lot. I have not seen any documentation showing a construction time line though.

2 Likes

Ah so these ones should be pretty quick. What about Cherry Street? That one a parking lot to?

1 Like

One would think so, but foundation work for these I’d imagine would take some time.

There is a small low-rise building where the podium of 247 Cherry St is that has to be demolished, otherwise that one will take a significantly longer time to build, both vertically and the foundations because it is being cantilevered over a small apartment building.

3 Likes

My oh my when will they learn. Another lawsuit to be thrown out…

2 Likes

Not to be disrespectful of/to anyone that got sick from 9/11 or The Pile, but what?..

The lawsuit argues construction of three high-rise towers in the area will create further environmental and health issues for those already contending with effects from 9/11.

1 Like

They’re desperate at this point to use whatever in their power to block the development. It’s almost comical.

4 Likes

Definitely, I understand some road blocks as stretching past a certain point when it comes to some lawsuits over developments, but this arguement literally doesnt make any sense.

Unless they are arguing that because the buildings are “twins” that that will somehow bring up ptsd?

My goodness! It’s been 21 years already since 9/11. I don’t know what/why the tragedy has to do with this development When will those learn it’s time to move on now?

Also, I thought a while ago that they were given a green light for these towers.

They were. This is an entirely new lawsuit. One I suspect will probably be thrown out.

1 Like

The article doesn’t really say anything as to how or why the lawsuit included those point to halt the development. It just really says the the lawsuit was made because the development will some how impede on “the constitutional right that gives New York state residents the right to clean air and a healthful environment”. But I have absolutely no idea how this environment could do either of those thing, noise pollution from construction doesn’t affect air quality and that’s the only thing I can understand as being a “pollutant”. The whole thing sounds frivolous.

And still, no disrespect to the health issues that arose from 9/11, but this specific area of Two Bridges along the waterfront wasn’t physically affected by 9/11, so I’m so confused.

2 Likes

That is a weird argument to be thrown out there. Imagine hearing that complaint on the unfinished 125 Greenwich and 45 Park, now that would actually make sense. But no, we’re hearing it about a development still being planned

1 Like

I swear to god if another lawsuit is filed against this development

Also I love that line " Dense development is just life in the city"

12 Likes

It’s getting the 200 Amsterdam treatment

1 Like