I completely agree.
They’re doing that in Seattle. Shutting down the SR-99 for urban growth. SR-99 is some what equivalent of the FDR. The development in downtown Seattle will be reputable.
This snipped from the article:
The rail-level traffic mirrors the congestion overhead, caused by construction so hellbent on milking New York’s waning real estate hyper-boom that any patch of land bigger than a tick’s front yard is considered suitable for luxury condos.
Some validity to that.
Very true. Late at night or early morning. It is very, very crowded. I think night offers the best views.
The High Line is great, but yes so crowded. But, all in all, I am very pro-tourists coming into the city and I would visit the High Line too if I were a tourist, it is cool and also connects to Chelsea Market, another tourist hot spot.
Maybe I’m high, but I think the solution is to keep building tourist-y attractions to disperse the masses. The ferris wheel would have been good for that reason, but having more observation towers helps, the WTC Oculus helps, building up the waterfronts in BK and Queens helps, if we get something fresh on the South Street Seaport, etc. - Governors Island has gotten pretty popular, but it can actually absorb more people in warm months…
I expect the Vessel to be a smashing success (no suicide pun intended), so I’m not sure if that will worsen the high line crowds, probably so. At the end of the day, this is mostly a good problem to have, I think?!
I agree with you. I don’t see it as a problem. I love being around large numbers of people. I love the vibrancy and seeing the people from all around the world enjoying our city. There are many, many deserted places in this city, even empty parks and yet people will complain about one of the few vibrant ones we have.
Your line of argument is akin to saying “let them eat cake”. Besides “vibrant” is a very subjective thing…I mean if one enjoys participating in a cattle run (as a cow), but that’s just my opinion.
Nor is it right to say “there are many empty parks in the city”…so what, why don’t the tourist want to visit an empty park somewhere in Queens?? (That’s rhetorical )
I think the point of this conversation is not to criticize new development around the High Line nor is it to hate on the tourist that visit it, but to brainstorm about ways to decongest it. Easiest way to do it is to keep it open longer.
Another way might be building new attractions, as tone99loc suggests, though I’m afraid this might suffer from the law of induced demand. Right, can’t solve traffic problems by building more roads.
Great shots, City. This project is amazing.
Getting cavernous,and the western building of Heatherwick’s project hasn’t even joined yet.
For some reason these buildings and my sense of aesthetics just don’t mix well. The shape is just odd. But it’s not attractive. It’s great engineering but not beautiful. It will draw my eyes to it but not my sense of pleasure.
Like a lot of architecture these days these buildings just derive meaning from offending traditional aesthetics, by being transgressive. We’re used to buildings that taper, these are top heavy and loom. We don’t expect inert structures in nature to be top heavy; they make us uneasy because they’ll crumble and fall. That’s not a great impression for an apartment building or any building in a city.
I often like stuff that undermines traditional architectural modes. I think 111 W 57, for example is magnificent. And many of the new apartments along the High Line are terrific. These however …
They produce anxiety rather than pleasure. One construction worker on the site told me that the fire department showed up one day because a woman called in a report of a building leaning over.
Even worse of a choice was BIG’s design for 2 WTC. What worse possible place could you choose to have supertall appearing to be constructed of precariously balanced blocks, top-heavy, and ready to be tipped over at any moment. I sincerely hope this design never sees the light of day.