Export thread

makes a good title eh? propose new sky scrapper is a "no no" since the building will only be 34 feet shorter than Empire State building.

Empire State Neighbor Plan Builds Resentment In NY - CBS News

Anthony Malkin is kind of a jerk. A few months ago, he refused a request by Bill Donahue's people to light the ESB to honor Mother Teresa, and claimed that the ESB has a policy against religious figures being honored, even though they had already recently honored the Pope. He's not wrong in saying he can do whatever he wants, but he really should have just come out and said it instead of pretending to be high and mighty.

That said, the building renders are real ugly against the skyline, and the "not enough office space" argument doesn't sound right to me. There's literally thousands of posts on craigslist alone of available spaces, and a midtown office building isn't exactly going to be offering space for cheap. The reason why there aren't a lot of new businesses isn't because there isn't enough space available, it's probably more likely that banks/VCs are much more reluctant to offer credit.

The pic I found of it looks as though it would be a good idea not to build it. The top floor looks higher than the ESB. That only the Spire of the ESB will make it taller. Not to mention that it looks like it will be golden tinted glass. /barf

Duke of New York! A-Number-One!

So, the reason they won't allow a skyscraper that could theoretically be a big boost to the economy is because "it would change the skyline"? Fucking retarded.

....That's stupid.

blotsfan said:

So, the reason they won't allow a skyscraper that could theoretically be a big boost to the economy is because "it would change the skyline"? Fucking retarded.

Click to expand...

I don't buy the "big boost to the economy" argument, for the reasons I mentioned. I'm sure the developer does, though an it's his land, he just needs to convince the zoning board.

Malkin is just being a dumbass, even if the building plans look ugly.

blotsfan said:

So, the reason they won't allow a skyscraper that could theoretically be a big boost to the economy is because "it would change the skyline"? Fucking retarded.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the city could argue that its skyline is a major attraction, so any change could have the potential to cost them millions in tourist dollars.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think people aren't gonna visit New York anymore just because the skyline is less beautiful. It still has all the shopping, dining, and cultural things that make it such a major tourist attraction.

Troll;430873][QUOTE=blotsfan said:

So, the reason they won't allow a skyscraper that could theoretically be a big boost to the economy is because "it would change the skyline"? Fucking retarded.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, the city could argue that its skyline is a major attraction, so any change could have the potential to cost them millions in tourist dollars.[/QUOTE]

the city would have been REALLY pissed from the aftermath of 9/11 then =(..

I think the skyline "iconography" is a stupid excuse.. cities change, it's the course of life! Get over it Malkin!

..if you build it, they will come..

blotsfan said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think people aren't gonna visit New York anymore just because the skyline is less beautiful. It still has all the shopping, dining, and cultural things that make it such a major tourist attraction.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I don't think they need to block this construction, at least not because it will hurt the skyline. If it's truly going to be that ugly and unnecessary, well, that's a different story.

Fucking amateurs the whole lot of em.

You never let me have nothing! *pout*

Click to expand...

.