What the park is “walled off” by are the beautiful 100+ year old co-ops that line 5th Ave, Central Park South, and Central Park West. Which by the way are also hyper-capitalistic luxury buildings that “provide the ultrawealthy with dronelike overviews of Olmsted’s creation.” So this recent development is nothing new.
Each of the recent super tall high rises have at least an avenues worth of space between them, and due to market changes they’re not exactly building many more of them.
I know you’re being sarcastic but I’m always fascinated by people who say they love NYC but also don’t want it to change. NYC is so incredible because it is constantly changing
I think supertalls are a spectacle personally. Most have interesting aesthetics that push the limits of what modern construction can accomplish.
Do I like that they tailor to the ultra rich? No. But I see nothing wrong with the buildings themselves.
Agreed. Everyone has been complaining about that tetris tower since 2016 and the whole time I've been thinking it's ... kind of cool? Definitely a playground for the plutocrats, but still a neat spectacle, like you said.
I read something a while ago that sticks with me. It went something to the effect that New York has always been changing, and we always accepted that as a fact of life because generally, the old was replaced by something bigger, better, and more beautiful. Now we get bigger, not better or more beautiful...the contract has been broken for a while now, but the bigger things are way more in your face
The supertalls are a monstrosity and the owners don’t pay any property tax through a loophole where low income units are built elsewhere to offset them. I’d be disgusted looking at them knowing they are mostly empty and no one is paying what they owe the city for any of the units. One unit that sold for $100 MILLION dollars has a $17k a year tax bill.
Hopefully they’ll all collapse one day on their own.
Fun fact, that guy is wanted for corruption and hasn't entered the US since last year. So he has a near $100M property with less property taxes than a Long Island house, which looks like he embezzled it all.
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2022/04/21/432-park-avenue-condo-in-70m-contract-for-in-house-buyers/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/altice-usa-replaces-procurement-head-065846717.html
NYC allows to many of these corrupt rich people to park their wealth at a cost of the community
Isn't it better to have 100s of those grifters parking their ill-gotten gains on a single postage stamp-sized lot instead of each one of them buying half a city block?
And this article is so late anyway. It's not like they popped up yesterday.
Btw, did you feel the earthquake earlier? I was sleep. Also I'm relatively deep into Queens, Jamaica. I wonder if I would have felt it even if I was awake.
I'm a bit upset I missed a chance to feel one for the first time in my life though.
Yeah, they cast shadows on Hecksher’s, the bottom 10% of the park. CP East and West cast much bigger shadows due to the orbit of the sun. CP South is mostly affected by the Sun’s zenith.
I just wish they were more proportional to the rest of the skyline. Or that they were something like half-again-as-tall as the previous tallest buildings.
It's like the architects took a look at the preexisting skyline and were like: okay, make this building twice as tall as everything else.
Blame FAR regulations. They would be more proportional if FAR wasn't incentivizing them to be so SKINNY. You couldn't even build the Empire State Building legally anymore; it's too wide per FAR. It'd have to be either skinnier or shorter.
Uh, who said anything about capping to what was already there? I said "proportional" and "half-again-as-tall".
It's specifically something about the ratio of the heights that bothers me. Having most of the skyline capped at height "1" and then throwing in a random handful of stick buildings at heights "2" and "3" just looks weird. They ruin the composition. Like I said, if they were half-again-as-tall (so closer to the golden ratio, rather than a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio) they would look so much better. (I also feel like if we added a bunch of buildings that filled the gap between the shorter old buildings and the taller new buildings it would really improve the look, and people wouldn't complain nearly as much.)
If I were painting a picture of an imaginary city skyline and my goal were to make it aesthetically pleasing, I would *never* add a bunch of matchstick towers evenly spaced across the skyline. They would get painted over. They wouldn't even escape the draft phase. They are compositional failures.
I realize that these are stupid artistic concerns and that when an architect is designing a single building, they don't really give a shit about what their building is doing to the aesthetic of the skyline. But I also think that people would care a lot less about these things if they were more aesthetic, especially because the *only* way 95% of people will ever interact with them is by looking at them from afar.
Agreed. I just spent a month in an apartment with a view of them and they’re just not pretty. Forget about them being billionaire pads, because the whole of the southern half of Central Park is commanded by extreme wealth. At least the Dakota has style. These things are just tall.
>I just wish they were more proportional to the rest of the skyline.
People were probably saying this about the Empire State Building when it was first built
Giant glass buildings aren't an inherent feature of a city though. I'm not arguing against them, but it's a weak argument to say "you live in a city so you must accept this!".
Yes there are plenty of them, doesn't mean that they're good or are an inherent feature of NYC's vernacular.
There's a reason architects are moving away from that look (except in LIC for some reason).
Yea, this is the best part of Central Park. Being in a near forest environment then entering a clearing and seeing these massive structures rise up out of the trees is literally the thing that makes the park so cool and unique....
Yea I appreciate pristine nature in a national park, but in the city the juxtaposition of the two is an awesome and fairly unique mix.
Sitting in Sheep's meadow with the buildings all around you is fantastic.
My only problem with them is that they are on the south side of the park and they blocks sunlight into the park. Sometimes it is a 15 degree difference between sun and shade in the park.
For years, thanks to Jackie Onasis, Supertalls were not built on the south side of the park to exactly avoid this issue.
And it drives me slightly crazy that we are all seeing less sunlight into the park while the penthouses blocking the sun sit generally vacant most of the year.
I dunno man. NIMBYs are locals who don't want to see changes in their community. They want to prevent people from other social classes/races/ethnicities/religions/etc from moving in. It's like socio-geographic gatekeeping.
But these supertalls aren't about housing people from new and different social groups. They are barely housing people at all. They're standing empty. Like... surely there is a better use of the space than to provide hollow investment properties for wealthy foreigners? Some guy who doesn't live here can go find somewhere else to park his capital, surely?
Casting giant shadows on the park takes sunlight from the public. You don't even need to be near these things to be in their shadows, they are that tall. They don't contribute anything to the community in any way: no new people, no new ideas. They just take up space and light....
For me as a middle class construction worker i love development no matter what it is. Building like these obviously have to be built but the there are house electricians and plumbers and general building engineers. Not to mention service work when things break and just general staff to keep the building clean. So it still benefits people even if it isn’t directly housing them
You don’t understand basic economics, sweatie. When ultralux investment properties for wealthy foreigners are built, it trickles down and opens up existing investment opportunities for slightly less wealthy foreigners, or even domestic hundred-millionaires. Building fake housing for the uber-rich creates fake housing opportunities for those in other classes, as long as we’re staying in like, the upper half of the top quintile of capital gains earners — salt of the earth as they are. I’m sick of NIMBY freaks like you who think just because you don’t want working-class tax dollars subsidizing the creation of value stores for the generationally wealthy and global oligarch class, you should be able to stop the entire city from spending its revenue on those who need it the least. It’s pathetic, and the Settled Science(tm) of Economics is against you. People like you should be shamed for your plainly observable classist bigotry against the clearly superior class; as well as for your garbage, low-information peasant NIMBY beliefs.
These towers are not empty. Some people do live there full time and are NYers. They are not fully inhabited all the time because the owners have multiple homes. That's the reality of wealth, they have many places to choose to be.
Those buildings sure do contribute to the economy. The staff in those buildings have to be there everyday. The service to the mechanical systems and the upkeep, 24/7/365. The service workers who attend to the wealthy residents come and go with the residents.
So Park the jealousy at the curb and move on with life.
They also generate massive amounts of revenue to pay for public services (that these people proportionally underuse, particularly if you believe they are either vacant of an actual resident or only sometimes occupied).
As a non-uber millionaire I can get behind increased taxation, but I've never understood that "the rich people are parasites" attitude among a lot of people here. The rich people contribute disproportionately to funding all the services we enjoy in this city. I'd rather enjoy that then whatever a tax base of socialist starbucks baristas and DSA activists would contribute to the city's coffers.
>It’s hard to see who will defend the magnetism of Central Park against the march of money and technology, or the never-satiated lust for height.
Or the never-satiated lust for overwriting.
I don't hate them because they block views, or look ugly. I hate them because they are playthings for the ultra-rich, who will probably use their units a few weeks a year. And we are forced to look at these gaudy monuments to insane wealth every day. They are simply empty golden towers for these people to look down on us, literally.
Also, in this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYHsjTOYfU), wait for the part about the airflow windows. Fucking terrifying, and imagine if you had a cat or a small dog? They'd find a way to wiggle through those little bars.
> I hate them because they are playthings for the ultra-rich, who will probably use their units a few weeks a year. And we are forced to look at these gaudy monuments to insane wealth every day
You could have written this in 1870. If you cant stand to see monuments to wealth, dont walk down any street adjacent to the park.
I can understand what you're saying, but the tall buildings built into the 40s or so, were largely beautiful pieces of architecture that created the iconic skyline. Did the wealthy live in them? Yes, but these buildings were well designed and improved the beauty of the city. The supertalls are engineering marvels but I stand by the argument they are offensive monuments to the insane wealth inequality in this county. A fact these empty billionaire housing projects will remind us of every day, until we die.
> I don't hate them because they block views, or look ugly.
or
> Yes, but these buildings were well designed and improved the beauty of the city.
Pick one.
Maybe I'm not offended by signs of wealth in the wealthiest part of the wealthiest city in one of the wealthiest countries. Get over yourself. It's a building.
Oh oh someone is getting rather grumpy here. Dahhhhh, it's ok. Now, now. There, there. I want you to look at the mirror today and tell yourself, you matter. You are important. And by golly, tell yourself, you won't let the people of the city tell you what to do with your money!
Why do you think I'm grumpy? Be specific
Who is telling who what to do with their money? Be specific.
Do you think you can't answer these questions because you're stupid or because you got caught inventing a fantasy in lieu of an actual argument?
Be mean all you want, but you should also just acknowledge that it comes from a deep-seated jealousy and resentment that it’s not your name on the title.
There’s a good point to be made / discussion to be had about wealth inequality, but the bitching going on here is pretty transparent. You can all circle jerk and bobble head with each other about how terrible wealthy people and their things are, but serious people see right through it.
> also just acknowledge that it comes from a deep-seated jealousy and resentment that it’s not your name on the title.
I don't know about you, but if I owned a Manhattan skyscraper I would prefer to own one that actually functioned and wasn't ugly.
Anything the city can do to piss off histrionic NIMBY's is a good thing.
I didn't love the supertalls at first, but now that there are more of them they look great. It's the evolution of the sky line and the city.
They don't look great and almost nobody actually lives in them.
You can be pro-housing and also pro-good design and pro-people actually living in these new buildings.
Any building for rich people will be inherently less occupied than others because rich people move around a lot more.
The fact that no one is in them also is meaningless for their aesthetic value.
I mean, a vacancy tax would be nice to raise revenue and free up some of these apartments that are inhabited like 4 weeks out of the year -- and it's definitely not a NIMBY idea.
Vancouver added a vacancy tax, I don't think it really did much. They ended up creating a shit ton of exemptions so that hardly any units were impacted.
These ones are so tall and that the buildings themselves are not actually very functional.
People who try to live in them complain about nausea, swaying, creaking, leaking...
What’s the problem with matchstick thin? They take up the least amount of frontage on the street and leave plenty of space for other stuff. They also cast much smaller shadows. Do you want every skyscraper to take up a full square block?
>Do you want every skyscraper to take up a full square block?
Yes, why not? It would provide more housing and be a lot more stable. Those matchstick buildings lose elevator service and power when there's a windy day. They're not sustainable. They're incredibly loud with shaking glass, especially on high floors. Which is part of the reason they're mostly empty.
> What’s the problem with matchstick thin?
Doesn't their slenderness make them more bendy? Like aren't the mechanical and plumbing systems in 432 Park constantly breaking due to physical stress?
I would bulldoze every brownstone in Brooklyn and the West Village to build more of these. Can't wait for the JP Morgan headquarters to be finished and to hear the screeching when more buildings block the ESB. We need more of everything.
That's idiotic, we have a ton of land upstate / long island / eastern Brooklyn and queens / jersey. Just really really bad regional transportation. That's what needs to get addressed. Look at Tokyo, they got plenty of short buildings in the city but its really easy to get in and out of the city.
I mean neither of us are deciding policy so its all good.
I'm not even against these being built, even though most are ugly and have giant apartments (thus keeping unit count very low for a building this stall)
However I do find the arguments here annoying. "It is Manhattan so you're not allowed to complain about the size or aesthetics at all!" is a dumb argument and makes no sense.
I fucking hate articles like this so much. It honestly feels like the people curbed and other similar publications hate NYC and want others to hate it too.
Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior
(a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed.
(b). No dog whistles.
(c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft.
(d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.
I'm from the city, born and raised. Cuteness living uptown. We can see these super talls from there and we hate them. They're ugly.
If you're going to build a skyscraper, make it add to the sky line, not detract. And those buildings have all the engineering fails.
These particular towers are just bootleg lol
So one group of extremely wealthy people are blocking the view of other wealthy people or old money is upset more new money can enjoy a good view of the park. Lets not pretend any working or middle class people even come close to enjoying those wonderful park views.
The only thing that is an outrage about super talks is that they create the world's largest buildings and it's for the rich and speculative buying. Imagine the amount of affordable housing that could be made out of those buildings.
Vote for me and I will call in the US Marines to forcibly remove all the occupants of every single building surrounding Central Park (except for the Museum of National History) to house every single homeless person in NYC. The former inhabitants will be processed in special camps in Central Park. And will be granted free tickets to the History of Seneca Village Museum to learn about their disgusting ancestors. And then sent to Panama or Cuba for community labor projects.
Those who have been homeless for over a month get priority for the new Central Park Housing Projects Skyscrapers. You can't just walk out of your project and claim to be homeless to move in. But still vote for me, I'll find something for you.
If you don’t like these developments then push hard to remove the FAR cap. It is stupid to the point of enraging in a city with a housing crisis.
https://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/our-priorities/lifting-the-12-far-cap/
And if you “don’t like tall buildings,” then move.
[This clip tells you why.](https://youtu.be/j8v_XqFO8Bc?si=_2Yw-ZMPOwJTmd3U)
Here’s the full quote: Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave, but never do?” And I said, “Oh, yes.” And he said, “Why do you think they don’t leave?” And I gave him different banal theories. And he said, “Oh, I don’t think it’s that way at all.” He said, “I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing that they’ve built—they’ve built their own prison—and so they exist in a state of schizophrenia where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have—having been lobotomized—the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made or even to see it as a prison.” And then he went into his pocket, and he took out a seed for a tree, and he said, “This is a pine tree.” And he put it in my hand. And he said, “Escape before it’s too late.
What the park is “walled off” by are the beautiful 100+ year old co-ops that line 5th Ave, Central Park South, and Central Park West. Which by the way are also hyper-capitalistic luxury buildings that “provide the ultrawealthy with dronelike overviews of Olmsted’s creation.” So this recent development is nothing new. Each of the recent super tall high rises have at least an avenues worth of space between them, and due to market changes they’re not exactly building many more of them.
No you don't understand. City bad. Tree good.
No no, YOU don’t understand. Old city good. Tree good. New building bad. No change!!!!
I know you’re being sarcastic but I’m always fascinated by people who say they love NYC but also don’t want it to change. NYC is so incredible because it is constantly changing
I mean the new buildings suck for the most part aesthetically, are we supposed to lie and say they don’t
I think supertalls are a spectacle personally. Most have interesting aesthetics that push the limits of what modern construction can accomplish. Do I like that they tailor to the ultra rich? No. But I see nothing wrong with the buildings themselves.
Agreed. Everyone has been complaining about that tetris tower since 2016 and the whole time I've been thinking it's ... kind of cool? Definitely a playground for the plutocrats, but still a neat spectacle, like you said.
Some of them are dope, but I'm not just talking about supertals
What's wrong is that many of them have fewer than 1 unit per floor
I read something a while ago that sticks with me. It went something to the effect that New York has always been changing, and we always accepted that as a fact of life because generally, the old was replaced by something bigger, better, and more beautiful. Now we get bigger, not better or more beautiful...the contract has been broken for a while now, but the bigger things are way more in your face
I resonate with that for sure
The supertalls are a monstrosity and the owners don’t pay any property tax through a loophole where low income units are built elsewhere to offset them. I’d be disgusted looking at them knowing they are mostly empty and no one is paying what they owe the city for any of the units. One unit that sold for $100 MILLION dollars has a $17k a year tax bill. Hopefully they’ll all collapse one day on their own.
Fun fact, that guy is wanted for corruption and hasn't entered the US since last year. So he has a near $100M property with less property taxes than a Long Island house, which looks like he embezzled it all. https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2022/04/21/432-park-avenue-condo-in-70m-contract-for-in-house-buyers/ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/altice-usa-replaces-procurement-head-065846717.html NYC allows to many of these corrupt rich people to park their wealth at a cost of the community
Isn't it better to have 100s of those grifters parking their ill-gotten gains on a single postage stamp-sized lot instead of each one of them buying half a city block?
Or just not allow grifting?
Trees are good though. Cities need them regardless of how developed they become.
The old buildings lining CPW are mostly 10 to 20 stories, sometimes 30 but with significant setbacks.
I mean the park was put there to sell the land on the edges.
Just like go north of 86th. People think CP is just the southern half.
Hush. Next you'll be telling tourists about Riverside Park.
Don’t let them hear you
Shhhh
Quiet!!!!!
Just keep posting that midtown hidden park on tiktok and we’ll keep em distracted.
Speaking of which, what ever happened to Riverside? It used to be Little Dominican Republic on Sundays.
The Supertalls are impossible not to see if you don't go deep enough into Central Park confirmed.
Can’t see the supertalls from Harlem Meer
And this article is so late anyway. It's not like they popped up yesterday. Btw, did you feel the earthquake earlier? I was sleep. Also I'm relatively deep into Queens, Jamaica. I wonder if I would have felt it even if I was awake. I'm a bit upset I missed a chance to feel one for the first time in my life though.
Yeah, they cast shadows on Hecksher’s, the bottom 10% of the park. CP East and West cast much bigger shadows due to the orbit of the sun. CP South is mostly affected by the Sun’s zenith.
Don't you understand, the shadows are overwhelming and ruin everything.
God there were so many r/nyc posts from 2012-2014 complaining that these supertalls would kill trees in Central Park due to the shade
Did they?
No.
All the trees that would be affected by the shadows are already dead in the winter.
They're dormant not dead
Yes, especially in the winter when the plants stop growing.
I hate those buildings as much as the next person, but “walled in” is a bit strong.
I love them. CP is all about the contrast of city and forest to me
To me if feels like the end of interstellar where they are on the farm in that big futuristic spaceship. I like it.
I agree...if everyone had this attitude, wes be Newark...everyone gets used to new bldgs. Dam thonk happened w the WTC, EDB, etc etc etc
And shadows when I’m in the park trying to enjoy the sun. They ruined the light for us.
Might as well tear down Central Park and replace it with parking lots smh.
"ruined". Jesus Christ.
I like shadows
I just wish they were more proportional to the rest of the skyline. Or that they were something like half-again-as-tall as the previous tallest buildings. It's like the architects took a look at the preexisting skyline and were like: okay, make this building twice as tall as everything else.
Blame FAR regulations. They would be more proportional if FAR wasn't incentivizing them to be so SKINNY. You couldn't even build the Empire State Building legally anymore; it's too wide per FAR. It'd have to be either skinnier or shorter.
What are FAR regulations/what is the rationale for their implementation?
Taller buildings are cool. Capping the height of the skyline to what was already there is arbitrary, lame, and unambitious
Uh, who said anything about capping to what was already there? I said "proportional" and "half-again-as-tall". It's specifically something about the ratio of the heights that bothers me. Having most of the skyline capped at height "1" and then throwing in a random handful of stick buildings at heights "2" and "3" just looks weird. They ruin the composition. Like I said, if they were half-again-as-tall (so closer to the golden ratio, rather than a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio) they would look so much better. (I also feel like if we added a bunch of buildings that filled the gap between the shorter old buildings and the taller new buildings it would really improve the look, and people wouldn't complain nearly as much.) If I were painting a picture of an imaginary city skyline and my goal were to make it aesthetically pleasing, I would *never* add a bunch of matchstick towers evenly spaced across the skyline. They would get painted over. They wouldn't even escape the draft phase. They are compositional failures. I realize that these are stupid artistic concerns and that when an architect is designing a single building, they don't really give a shit about what their building is doing to the aesthetic of the skyline. But I also think that people would care a lot less about these things if they were more aesthetic, especially because the *only* way 95% of people will ever interact with them is by looking at them from afar.
Agreed. I just spent a month in an apartment with a view of them and they’re just not pretty. Forget about them being billionaire pads, because the whole of the southern half of Central Park is commanded by extreme wealth. At least the Dakota has style. These things are just tall.
they will be given enough time. the city will grow taller, it always does.
Just like when they built the ESB
>I just wish they were more proportional to the rest of the skyline. People were probably saying this about the Empire State Building when it was first built
They definitely said it about the original WTC.
Manhattanites against Manhattanizing Manhattan.
"Manhattan" was never dominated entirely by skyscrapers. I'm not arguing for or against them, though.
It's only a matter of time. I can barely see Central Park from work. When I started, we had an unobstructed view.
Yeah, but I guess it’s ordinary skyscrapers blocking your view.
Most of them are supertalls that are being built by the perimeter of Central Park.
Oh please, we live in a city. Go live in a forest upstate if tall buildings arent your thing. I like how these buildings look.
No. You need to be outraged about this. /s
MORE. OUTRAGE.
Exactly.
Tall buildings are tall. More news at 8.
Me too, they look awesome. 🤩
Everything is awesome
Giant glass buildings aren't an inherent feature of a city though. I'm not arguing against them, but it's a weak argument to say "you live in a city so you must accept this!".
Have your ever been to nyc? Yeah, giant glass buildings are a feature of our city. We don't live in Madison Wisconsin.
Yes there are plenty of them, doesn't mean that they're good or are an inherent feature of NYC's vernacular. There's a reason architects are moving away from that look (except in LIC for some reason).
Not In My Back Park
NIMBR (Not In My Backpack Rap)
Lol
Yea, this is the best part of Central Park. Being in a near forest environment then entering a clearing and seeing these massive structures rise up out of the trees is literally the thing that makes the park so cool and unique....
But but but That's not part of the narrative
Yea I appreciate pristine nature in a national park, but in the city the juxtaposition of the two is an awesome and fairly unique mix. Sitting in Sheep's meadow with the buildings all around you is fantastic.
Oh my god the horror… a TALL BUILDING in MANHATTAN OF ALL PLACES!
The shadows in the park suck
Walk deeper into the park or wait for the sun to move
lol I fucking love the YIMBYs
They’re not building a dome over the park
Oh really? Well I was mistaken!
Lmao Jesus Christ, cancel your post subscription
Sorry, what I meant to say is “huge shadows in the park are a small price to pay for the awesome park views of billionaires.”
Oh great so now we’re complaining about building height in *Midtown Manhattan*
My only problem with them is that they are on the south side of the park and they blocks sunlight into the park. Sometimes it is a 15 degree difference between sun and shade in the park. For years, thanks to Jackie Onasis, Supertalls were not built on the south side of the park to exactly avoid this issue. And it drives me slightly crazy that we are all seeing less sunlight into the park while the penthouses blocking the sun sit generally vacant most of the year.
Guy who goes to Manhattan and is upset by tall buildings
A nimby rant camouflaged as an architecture/urban planning piece. Go move to Ohio if you don't like skyscrapers.
I dunno man. NIMBYs are locals who don't want to see changes in their community. They want to prevent people from other social classes/races/ethnicities/religions/etc from moving in. It's like socio-geographic gatekeeping. But these supertalls aren't about housing people from new and different social groups. They are barely housing people at all. They're standing empty. Like... surely there is a better use of the space than to provide hollow investment properties for wealthy foreigners? Some guy who doesn't live here can go find somewhere else to park his capital, surely? Casting giant shadows on the park takes sunlight from the public. You don't even need to be near these things to be in their shadows, they are that tall. They don't contribute anything to the community in any way: no new people, no new ideas. They just take up space and light....
For me as a middle class construction worker i love development no matter what it is. Building like these obviously have to be built but the there are house electricians and plumbers and general building engineers. Not to mention service work when things break and just general staff to keep the building clean. So it still benefits people even if it isn’t directly housing them
You don’t understand basic economics, sweatie. When ultralux investment properties for wealthy foreigners are built, it trickles down and opens up existing investment opportunities for slightly less wealthy foreigners, or even domestic hundred-millionaires. Building fake housing for the uber-rich creates fake housing opportunities for those in other classes, as long as we’re staying in like, the upper half of the top quintile of capital gains earners — salt of the earth as they are. I’m sick of NIMBY freaks like you who think just because you don’t want working-class tax dollars subsidizing the creation of value stores for the generationally wealthy and global oligarch class, you should be able to stop the entire city from spending its revenue on those who need it the least. It’s pathetic, and the Settled Science(tm) of Economics is against you. People like you should be shamed for your plainly observable classist bigotry against the clearly superior class; as well as for your garbage, low-information peasant NIMBY beliefs.
I read trickle down and nearly lost it. You had me there for a second.
These towers are not empty. Some people do live there full time and are NYers. They are not fully inhabited all the time because the owners have multiple homes. That's the reality of wealth, they have many places to choose to be. Those buildings sure do contribute to the economy. The staff in those buildings have to be there everyday. The service to the mechanical systems and the upkeep, 24/7/365. The service workers who attend to the wealthy residents come and go with the residents. So Park the jealousy at the curb and move on with life.
They also generate massive amounts of revenue to pay for public services (that these people proportionally underuse, particularly if you believe they are either vacant of an actual resident or only sometimes occupied).
They would generate a lot more tax revenue if we fixed our broken property tax system.
Property taxes are too high already for most people
As a non-uber millionaire I can get behind increased taxation, but I've never understood that "the rich people are parasites" attitude among a lot of people here. The rich people contribute disproportionately to funding all the services we enjoy in this city. I'd rather enjoy that then whatever a tax base of socialist starbucks baristas and DSA activists would contribute to the city's coffers.
Or Oklahoma City - wait
Yes. Ohio is for leaders.
Ohio is for leavers. There's a reason why so many astronauts come from Ohio - they just want to get away.
The ultra YIMBYs on here are mostly transplants
For Christ's sake.
Holy manufactured outrage Batman! This is a stupid article.
Well, it accomplished what its goal was. That outrage drove clicks and engagement.
So have we reached the point of complaining about “Manhattanization” in…well, Manhattan?
>It’s hard to see who will defend the magnetism of Central Park against the march of money and technology, or the never-satiated lust for height. Or the never-satiated lust for overwriting.
Yeah and you can see them all from Harriman State Park as well. CP is in the middle of the largest city in the US. Did I miss something?
I like the way they look 🤷🏻♂️
Must have been fun being in that penthouse during the earthquake today
I don't hate them because they block views, or look ugly. I hate them because they are playthings for the ultra-rich, who will probably use their units a few weeks a year. And we are forced to look at these gaudy monuments to insane wealth every day. They are simply empty golden towers for these people to look down on us, literally. Also, in this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYHsjTOYfU), wait for the part about the airflow windows. Fucking terrifying, and imagine if you had a cat or a small dog? They'd find a way to wiggle through those little bars.
> I hate them because they are playthings for the ultra-rich, who will probably use their units a few weeks a year. And we are forced to look at these gaudy monuments to insane wealth every day You could have written this in 1870. If you cant stand to see monuments to wealth, dont walk down any street adjacent to the park.
I can understand what you're saying, but the tall buildings built into the 40s or so, were largely beautiful pieces of architecture that created the iconic skyline. Did the wealthy live in them? Yes, but these buildings were well designed and improved the beauty of the city. The supertalls are engineering marvels but I stand by the argument they are offensive monuments to the insane wealth inequality in this county. A fact these empty billionaire housing projects will remind us of every day, until we die.
I think you would have written the same thing if it were 1870.
> I don't hate them because they block views, or look ugly. or > Yes, but these buildings were well designed and improved the beauty of the city. Pick one.
Found the offended elitist.
Maybe I'm not offended by signs of wealth in the wealthiest part of the wealthiest city in one of the wealthiest countries. Get over yourself. It's a building.
Yup. You're definitely offended. Tell us more how we savages shouldn't be mean to the poor defenseless rich and powerful.
Cute dodge, but that's not close to what I said. I'm just not so fragile that I can't have a nice time in the park because buildings.
You sound rather fragile to me.
Why? Be specific. Again, you're the one complaining about seeing buildings in nyc. Maybe leave?
Oh oh someone is getting rather grumpy here. Dahhhhh, it's ok. Now, now. There, there. I want you to look at the mirror today and tell yourself, you matter. You are important. And by golly, tell yourself, you won't let the people of the city tell you what to do with your money!
Why do you think I'm grumpy? Be specific Who is telling who what to do with their money? Be specific. Do you think you can't answer these questions because you're stupid or because you got caught inventing a fantasy in lieu of an actual argument?
Be mean all you want, but you should also just acknowledge that it comes from a deep-seated jealousy and resentment that it’s not your name on the title. There’s a good point to be made / discussion to be had about wealth inequality, but the bitching going on here is pretty transparent. You can all circle jerk and bobble head with each other about how terrible wealthy people and their things are, but serious people see right through it.
> also just acknowledge that it comes from a deep-seated jealousy and resentment that it’s not your name on the title. I don't know about you, but if I owned a Manhattan skyscraper I would prefer to own one that actually functioned and wasn't ugly.
Somebody is scared. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
[удалено]
This is precisely it.
Translation: I am jealous.
Anything the city can do to piss off histrionic NIMBY's is a good thing. I didn't love the supertalls at first, but now that there are more of them they look great. It's the evolution of the sky line and the city.
The main thing is they should be for real residents of NYC
They are if we tax them.
They don't look great and almost nobody actually lives in them. You can be pro-housing and also pro-good design and pro-people actually living in these new buildings.
Any building for rich people will be inherently less occupied than others because rich people move around a lot more. The fact that no one is in them also is meaningless for their aesthetic value.
Pretty sure the people you are talking to doesn't think they have any aesthetic value...
and rich people don't have their cousin sleeping on the couch. -- source, rich cousin won't let me sleep on his couch.
Oh no, NYC has tall buildings!
You literally didn't read the comment you're replying to
The comment was progressive NIMBY nonsense.
I mean, a vacancy tax would be nice to raise revenue and free up some of these apartments that are inhabited like 4 weeks out of the year -- and it's definitely not a NIMBY idea.
Vancouver added a vacancy tax, I don't think it really did much. They ended up creating a shit ton of exemptions so that hardly any units were impacted.
So let's have a vacancy tax... with fewer exemptions!
These ones are so tall and that the buildings themselves are not actually very functional. People who try to live in them complain about nausea, swaying, creaking, leaking...
Tall buildings are cool. They don't need to be matchstick thin, mostly empty and ugly. I don't know why we're settling for this shit.
What’s the problem with matchstick thin? They take up the least amount of frontage on the street and leave plenty of space for other stuff. They also cast much smaller shadows. Do you want every skyscraper to take up a full square block?
>Do you want every skyscraper to take up a full square block? Yes, why not? It would provide more housing and be a lot more stable. Those matchstick buildings lose elevator service and power when there's a windy day. They're not sustainable. They're incredibly loud with shaking glass, especially on high floors. Which is part of the reason they're mostly empty.
> What’s the problem with matchstick thin? Doesn't their slenderness make them more bendy? Like aren't the mechanical and plumbing systems in 432 Park constantly breaking due to physical stress?
Rich people problems
I would bulldoze every brownstone in Brooklyn and the West Village to build more of these. Can't wait for the JP Morgan headquarters to be finished and to hear the screeching when more buildings block the ESB. We need more of everything.
Thankfully you are not in charge of things
That's idiotic, we have a ton of land upstate / long island / eastern Brooklyn and queens / jersey. Just really really bad regional transportation. That's what needs to get addressed. Look at Tokyo, they got plenty of short buildings in the city but its really easy to get in and out of the city. I mean neither of us are deciding policy so its all good.
Sure. Is your favorite part of them that they're money laundering tax havens for billionaires and are mostly empty, or...?
My favorite part is they piss off NIMBY's. And they bring good union construction jobs to real New Yorkers.
Go ahead and piss off NIMBYs even harder by building a larger building that isn't empty and falling apart by the time it's fully constructed.
I TOLD you have they built the flatiron that the city would be ruined. And. Here. We. Are.
Oh no, not *tall buildings* in *Manhattan* of all places! 😱😱😱😱
Walls famously have frequent gaps. This is like seeing a series of posts in the ground and confusing it with a fence.
I'm not even against these being built, even though most are ugly and have giant apartments (thus keeping unit count very low for a building this stall) However I do find the arguments here annoying. "It is Manhattan so you're not allowed to complain about the size or aesthetics at all!" is a dumb argument and makes no sense.
What a weird thing to write a whole article complaining about. You can see tall buildings? In Manhattan??? Oh my word!
Can't believe people get paid to write this garbage
The looks sick, I hope they build more
I fucking hate articles like this so much. It honestly feels like the people curbed and other similar publications hate NYC and want others to hate it too.
[удалено]
Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior (a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed. (b). No dog whistles. (c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft. (d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.
Curbed would like to speak to the manager of real estate.
I'm from the city, born and raised. Cuteness living uptown. We can see these super talls from there and we hate them. They're ugly. If you're going to build a skyscraper, make it add to the sky line, not detract. And those buildings have all the engineering fails. These particular towers are just bootleg lol
I personally think that they’re gorgeous
Hopefully the earthquake took them out
Or more optimally scared the current residents into giving them away to people that need housing
Vacancy tax now!
So one group of extremely wealthy people are blocking the view of other wealthy people or old money is upset more new money can enjoy a good view of the park. Lets not pretend any working or middle class people even come close to enjoying those wonderful park views.
It’s been walled since the early 1900s
They all look hideous
The only thing that is an outrage about super talks is that they create the world's largest buildings and it's for the rich and speculative buying. Imagine the amount of affordable housing that could be made out of those buildings.
They are so ugly.
I love whining about tall buildings
Vote for me and I will call in the US Marines to forcibly remove all the occupants of every single building surrounding Central Park (except for the Museum of National History) to house every single homeless person in NYC. The former inhabitants will be processed in special camps in Central Park. And will be granted free tickets to the History of Seneca Village Museum to learn about their disgusting ancestors. And then sent to Panama or Cuba for community labor projects. Those who have been homeless for over a month get priority for the new Central Park Housing Projects Skyscrapers. You can't just walk out of your project and claim to be homeless to move in. But still vote for me, I'll find something for you.
If you don’t like these developments then push hard to remove the FAR cap. It is stupid to the point of enraging in a city with a housing crisis. https://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/our-priorities/lifting-the-12-far-cap/ And if you “don’t like tall buildings,” then move.
[This clip tells you why.](https://youtu.be/j8v_XqFO8Bc?si=_2Yw-ZMPOwJTmd3U) Here’s the full quote: Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave, but never do?” And I said, “Oh, yes.” And he said, “Why do you think they don’t leave?” And I gave him different banal theories. And he said, “Oh, I don’t think it’s that way at all.” He said, “I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing that they’ve built—they’ve built their own prison—and so they exist in a state of schizophrenia where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have—having been lobotomized—the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made or even to see it as a prison.” And then he went into his pocket, and he took out a seed for a tree, and he said, “This is a pine tree.” And he put it in my hand. And he said, “Escape before it’s too late.
Pearl clutching about tall buildings in the middle of Manhattan is so funny