Is the city of new york planning for?

[kiansville]

a mega skyscraper after freedom tower?!cause after the dubai's tower making,my ego is really hurt,i mean we still have the most lively and cultural diverse city in the world,and plus that New York City has always been the number 1 choice for all bussiness companies,without doubt NYC has ruled the skyscraper kingdom for a century(i know chicago was the first in Skyscraer)if we built'em first,if we introduced them to the world,we should be the best in them?
shouldn't we,i guess what im saying here is a little too passionate and shall we say illogical,but see,why does new york city has such a large metropolitan area?new york city could add a few other boroughs,you all know sooner or later this would happen may be to another city,whether or not if you believe in all that decentralization crap in american cities,cities are expanding and it is obvious they are,the point is,NYC can add several other boroughs from new jersey(jersey city) and several from long island or even the mainland,i know adding a borough from new jersey is extremely difficult,if we start to expand new york,and start building skyscrapers in another borough too as well,that would turn NYC into a 21 century megacity,do you agree,what are your ideas?

[TomAuch]

While this whole thread will soon be deleted, here's my response...

NYC will NEVER build another skyscraper taller than the FT. Why? Because many see it as uneconomical, and because the FAA has a 2,000 Foot building limit, so no structure in NYC will ever cross that mark. Besides, most of the area around the world building new mega-skyscrapers are in developing countries, and they are doing it mostly to show off their economic progress. While I don't want NYC to become another Rome or Venice (cities that were once functionally active but are now just relics of the past condemned to tourism alone) I don't think that we need to continue building taller and taller building to advance our progress...although I would like to make sure that we don't become a city that building nothing but lowrises either. A couple of 1,000 Footers would be nice :)

Also, the fact that many NYC schools are horrible, and the massive financial costs of maintaining a large city are terrifying, will prevent any new boroughs from being added. Jersey City becoming a borough would be nice, but it would probably take an act of Congress to do that. And I don't see anyone in Westchester, Rockland, or Long Island wanting to become formally part of the city.

[kiansville]

that is probably true about NYC not building anything higher than 2000 ft,and i agree because its dumb to do that,but adding a borough is definately needed,NYC's metropolitan area is about 10000sqmi,which is a lot compared too NYC's land area,so why not adding a few boroughs to the city?and also are there being any attempts being made for this?

[pianoman11686]

I don't see why you want another borough for NYC. It's not necessary. The city itself is already vibrant, as is the area surrounding it. You'll only be forcing people to go through a lot of bureaucratic nonsense in order to merge into the city limits, and it'll only give New York City politicians more problems and responsibilities to face. I think the fact that New York City spans five counties already is enough for you to consider it as a megacity.

[Jake]

We definately need to let Trump built the tower for the NYSE, we have the largest stock market in the world and we need to show it off. I say let's not be humble, I say let's build the tallest, biggest buildings ever. America is about ambition and NY is the very heart of that idea. NY's skyline is beautiful and more importantly inspiring and amazing because it was part of a competition. Everyone always wanted the tallest building and to say that any skyscraper downtown was built just because it was space-efficient is a lie. AIG built it's building because they wanted to say they're a collosus int he world of finance, Citicorp built their to show they're the biggest bank. The towers were built by the Rockefellers to show we can lift tons of steel that high. Noone in the world can stand under a Manhattan skyscraper and not feel its power. Someone said about the collapse of the twin towers that it released all the energy that was put into building those giants (potential energy). Skyscrapers are all about showing energy and might and NY needs to do what it was doing until not so long ago.

The FAA limit is ridiculous, we don't have planes flying that low and even if we had, why don't we just restrict airspace over lower Manhattan? It's a tiny piece of land and I don't think it would cause any air traffic.

[PHLguy]

I think trump will build a really tall building on the westside, maybe not 2000 feet but really tall.

If the FT is 2000-2100' and the burj dubai is 2300 feet thats not really a large difference, I doubt the Burj will be passed soon.

[TonyO]

NYC will certainly build a supertower someday. It may not be for 10 to 20 years, but it most certainly will happen. Today's sentiments about tall buildings as well as construction cost obstacles will be completely different in the future. The only question is when.

[TomAuch]

Yeah, it will build that supertall in the year 2105.

[TonyO]

Yeah, it will build that supertall in the year 2105.

That is just pessimistic and ignores past trends. Thankfully, NYers have more vision than that.

[kiansville]

Ok the thing is,we know that NYC is running out of space,and the other boroughs do not want to have any skyscraper developement,so why doesnt the NYC just add an empty area to its own and start developing bussiness in that area,i know its not easy,i just said it easy,but its not impossible,beside i told you it will happen one day,whether its going to shrink or expand,why not now?

[NYguy]

Ok the thing is,we know that NYC is running out of space,and the other boroughs do not want to have any skyscraper developement,so why doesnt the NYC just add an empty area to its own and start developing bussiness in that area,i know its not easy,i just said it easy,but its not impossible,beside i told you it will happen one day,whether its going to shrink or expand,why not now?

New York has the Hudson Yards (a new neighborhood of large skyscrapers). And besides that, the target redevelopment areas of Lond Island City in Queens, and downtown Brooklyn. There will be plenty to go around.

[STT757]

[QUOTE=kiansville] why does new york city has such a large metropolitan area?new york city could add a few other boroughs,[QUOTE]

NYC is more likely to lose one of it's five boroughs (Staten Island) rather than gain Boroughs, the way NYC has literally used Staten Island as a dumping ground for decades and the lack of attention they get from City hall they would be better off leaving the City.

This coming from somone born on Staten Island.

[kiansville]

That would be bad if we lose a borough,we are kind of small already

[TomAuch]

I wish someone would actually try and build a subway line in SI. Is there any other reason why they would want to secede besides being the city dump?

[debris]

Here's my fantasy scenerio:

1. Annex Hudson County for a sixth borough, and perhaps the urban parts of Essex and Union as well. Suburban Essex wants to split off from Newark/Irvington/Orange anyway.

2. Extend the L train to the Meadowlands, and build something like Prospect Park there, instead of the wasteland that's there now. I take the train through Secaucus, and let me tell you, the Meadowlands looks like a dump to me. Maybe there are nice parts, I don't know. Develop it at the density of Brooklyn; landfill won't support skyscrapers.

3. Build a tunnel west from Lower Manhattan to JC, and run the E train along the tracks of the HBLR, through Bayonne, and down to Staten Island, connecting with the north shore and LIRR

4. Fully integrate PATH trains into the IRT (they are built using the same specification).

[billyblancoNYC]

[QUOTE=kiansville] why does new york city has such a large metropolitan area?new york city could add a few other boroughs,[QUOTE]

NYC is more likely to lose one of it's five boroughs (Staten Island) rather than gain Boroughs, the way NYC has literally used Staten Island as a dumping ground for decades and the lack of attention they get from City hall they would be better off leaving the City.

This coming from somone born on Staten Island.

Rudy and Mike have paid close attention to Staten Island, actually. It's the city's only Republican stronghold, so favors are made.

Let's see, the major ones that come to mind over the past year or so: 1) closing Fresh Kills and planning a 2,200 acre park, 2) downzoning the entire borough to keep the suburban feel, 3) redeveloping the waterfront (homeport) and ferry terminal, 4) reactivating the northern rail (SIRR), 5) possible NASCAR track, 6) investing and expanding in the Howland Hook container port, 7) rezoning study for 5,700 western underutilized industrial acres

[TomAuch]

Next time a Democrat gets elected Mayor (if they manage to not screw their campaigns up) we will see cries of secession coming from Staten Island again.

[alex ballard]

Next time a Democrat gets elected Mayor (if they manage to not screw their campaigns up) we will see cries of secession coming from Staten Island again.

Which is one reason why Bloomburg must be re-elected. He's been one of our greatest mayors and has done nothing but good for the city.


I think it would do NY good to never see another democratic mayor again. I feel a vote for any of these Dem nutjobs is a vote for the 1970's city. Ferrer is a medicaid whore and wants to institue the stock transfer tax. Midas well stick a fork in the 5 boroughs if that happens. Same with Virgina Fields and all the rest.

[TomAuch]

I wouldn't paint every single Dem with that broad a brush (such as using the "Welfare Queen" label), but although I'm a Democrat (I will NEVER vote for someone like Bush, and I plan on voting for Spitzer and Hillary next year), the NYC Dems are a little on my left and suffer from "one party syndrome" where they only present mediocre candidates because they control everything else in the city. I think Ferrer is an douchebag who's politicized Diallo, and I don't like his tax policy on stock trades. Weiner seems like the only reasonable candidate in the field though, and if he gets nominated I would have no problem with him becoming Mayor. The bright side with Bloomberg is that at least conservatives hate him just as much as liberals...but that's because your average Tom DeLay or Jerry Falwell could NEVER get elected in NYC, thankfully enough.

[alex ballard]

Bloomie is great. The fact is, people no longer want to pay taxes and live in a welfare state. Period! If they don't like what they get taken out of their pockets, they'll move. Bloomburg understands this and therefore is doing the right thing. I don't know much about Weiner but he sounds like another tax rasier too. If only Bloomburg would break the unions, then we'd be talking...

[TomAuch]

Bloomberg RAISED taxes, much to the chagrin of the NY Post and others. Overall though he hasn't been a bad mayor. He's kept the city together and has Giuliani's positives on crime fighting and economic but without Rudy's baggage and abilty to polarize.