Gothamist: Hudson Yards Deal Relieves Pols, Concerns Times Critic

nivek

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:23:12 -0500

Pug fugly

sonyactivision

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:47:04 -0500

Architecture critics will be racing each other to complete couses on how to fly a jumbo jetliner over this one. It looks like something out of SOM's 1958 playbook. Even Canary Wharf is pure splendor by comparison. Naturally the politicians love it, because they are tasteless idiots from hell.

slappy

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:09:34 -0500

Ugly. Boring. Like, really.

JenChungsBra

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:24:10 -0500

The GOP controls half the state legislature, had its own governor for 12 of the last 13 years and has controlled city hall for the last 15 years (even if Bloomberg has now conveniently renounced his membership). They're doing fine considering how few registered voters they have. As for Tishman, they really, really, really should try to leave the Empire State Building out of the renderings for this new west side monstrosity. The contrast in architecture is striking.

bxbrian

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:14:18 -0500

@rolltide: And it makes you sad, doesn't it?

EastRiver

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:08:37 -0500

Because of its size and location — 12.4 million square feet on 26 acres in Midtown — it will have the most impact on the city’s identity. First of all, are the rail yards really midtown? Second, a few buildings are not going to dent the city's identity one bit. If you want to attack the project for other reasons go ahead but what are the alternatives? Critics need to consider the economics of this. It costs a lot of money to build over the railyards. Nobody is going to pay billions to put up small buildings unless they can turn around and sell little brownstones for millions of dollars. Goodbye affordable housing. The city might as well sell of the space and do something with the money.

Rolltide23

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:45:24 -0500

I hate to tell everyone, but this city has been run dy democrats since the beginning of time. New York is politically one of the biggest, along with SF, liberal cities in America. The Republican party almost doesnt even exist in this state.

IvoryJive

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:53 -0500

Really boring architecture, even ugly - with those color bands. Rock Center is probably the only superblock development in the whole city that's a halfway interesting place to be (note: it does maintain the street grid). This looks like it will follow the trends of Lincoln Center, Stuyvesant Town, the World Trade Center, and the Javitz Center in being a place that is "not only dull in itself, but the cause of dullness in others."

mmlanglie

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:06 -0500

Jesus. What is wrong with this city? Tishman getting this project is such a joke. What about architects actually designing something, with urban development not being dictated by politics, developers, and money. Jeesh, I know I sound idealistic, but what about the inhabitants of this city? Small-scale architecture? Ouroussoff is right. Is this really necessary?

Atomische

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:24:02 -0500

Too bad the railyards aren't big enough to build this.

AndrewODonnell

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:21:33 -0500

I've seen better; I've seen worse...not really digging the whole candy-like swirled facade though...anyone else?

petebfd

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:14:38 -0500

fugly.

Snoopy

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:09:00 -0500

Shouldn't this area be zoned manufacturing? It's just horrible that knowing all that space could have been used for light and heavy industry. Where are all the jobs being tossed to? India? China? Ohio?

matty

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:09:00 -0500

It's terrible. What a scar on the skyline.