Although I don't quite agree with czsz's condescending view of tourists, the point is that a city like New York does not have to target tourism in how it builds itself. I am not talking about hotels or airports. If New York makes the city attractive for residents, it will automatically be attractive for tourists.
If you visit any cosmopolitan city just for its sights and entertainment venues, I think you miss out on a lot.
I think it would be silly to turn the railyards into a mini Disney.
As for the entertainment thing, I guess amusements would be more suited for Coney Island than Manhattan. But I'm talking about having interactive and fun things to do besides shop. Why not put in more archades and rides in Times Sq? Why not a rollercoaster and/or resort area? Spas?
What archades are in TSQ? I don't know of any except Broadway City that closed down.
Hmm, an arcade doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. However trying to locate a roller coaster close to Times Square would be impossible.....you'd need at LEAST half a block, but since this is NY and it should be done on a scale worthy of its location, you'd need pretty much an entire block to work with. As for resorts, isn't Manhattan already a resort in and of itself? Building a facility with the name "resort" on it almost seems redundant.
The difficulty with rabid anti-NIMBYism is that at a certain point it becomes fundamentally antidemocratic. Don't the residents of Manhattan have a right to petition for land uses and services which would benefit them rather than a corporate CEO living in Greenwich or his customers streaming in from the Midwest?
And if the "greater good" of the city is to be served by such massive entertainment complexes, shouldn't they at least acquire a unique enough character to draw tourists who would otherwise be shopping at the same chain stores and riding the same basic roller coasters or whatever that one could find outside any relatively large North American city? Were I a tourist, a Six Flags like the one in my backyard would not be the lure which would entice me to New York. The city's potential flocks would find no reason to frequent an outdoor Mall of America-among-the-homeless when they could enjoy the same in sanitised, air-conditioned comfort. At a certain basic, elemental level, most come to New York to experience it as a spectacular feat of city-building, something unreplicated even by Las Vegas' crude facsimile. If the tourism trade is really something critical for New York, it can only truly be encouraged by allowing visitors to experience the city for itself.
I haven't seen many Tourists flocking to Turtle Bay... NYC is the "Disney Land" for Young Adults, and Times Square is one of their Shrines, along with the East Village, the Meat Packing District and other "attractive residential areas".Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
Attractive for residents isn't the same as "actractive residential areas."
That may be true, but Manhattan is hardly a place residents will find unatractive, regardless of whatever is built there, wherever it is. You could build an apartment tower on top of a sewage plant, and people would line up to move there. People may not like the idea of the sewage plant, but they would love the apartments.
That was not my point. My point is here.
By attrative, I don't mean pretty, but how the city is structured - its identity.
Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; June 17th, 2005 at 08:18 PM.
By your logic, it would be fine to have dissected Manhattan according to Robert Moses' wildest dreams, or to plop a nuclear waste dump here or there in Central Park- absolutely nothing could reduce the lust for life in New York! I understand you were hyperbolising, but it must be recognised there are limits to demand for residential real estate, even in this city. There's a reason value is retained more readily in places like the Village or Upper East Side than in more traditionally transitional neighbourhoods. The ambiance of many of the city's neighbourhoods, rather than merely their proximity to the city's diversions, makes them attractive in their own right.You could build an apartment tower on top of a sewage plant, and people would line up to move there.
By the way, I never suggested the Yankees were responsible for building up a neighbourhood around their stadium, merely that, for the sake of the South Bronx, it would be prudent for the city to allow the stadium to generate more commerce in its environs by planning for proximate development rather than barring it from the rest of the city with a wall of parkland- which even the best of is of rather limited use at night, when many such stadium neighbourhoods normally come alive.
Hmmm... Isn't Vancouver, Seattle, San Diego, Paris, London, Syndey... also quite attractive for residents... But don't we get tourists from there as well?
Hmmm... What is our identity around the world? Don't some perceive NYC'ers (i.e. maybe France) as aggressive, combative, impolite and self-centered? But yet the tourists still come despite our best efforts (i.e. thwarting the new UN office building because a small asphault handball park is residentially attractive; or by our mockery of an Olympic Stadium Proposal).
Or are the tourists coming because of the "build it [for tourists] and they will come mentality." Yep, that's the likely ticket. Museums, Lady Liberty, Haute-Couture Shops, Broadway-Opera-Ballet Shows, Art Galleries, Expensive Restaurants, Comedy Clubs, Night Clubs, Bars-Bars-Bars and lot's of blinky lights in Times Square... Sure, residents also partake in these diversions, but it takes lots of time and mula-shmula which are commodities that Tourists by definition are willing to part with in vast quantities. Hey, let's be proud of our NYC heritage because attracting tourists is something we do quite well, and its one of our top five industries (guesstimate is #3).
That said, being residential in design, thought and purpose is well, provincial. NYC has many stakeholders, and to dismiss their needs, wants and desires is a mistake. We are a world city, so making another extension of the Hudson Park bike path to do a loop-the-loop around the rail yards may make some resident from Battery Park City jump with joy, but bring another tourist to NYC from Montreal, the bike path capital of the world, naaaaa...
Last edited by KipsBay; June 17th, 2005 at 10:04 PM.
Getting back to the plans for the railyards and the overall Hudson Yards redevelopment, I think some of the suggestions we've heard are pretty decent. Most people want to see a vibrant mixed-use area, and I think whatever the future of Hudson Yards is, it shouldn't have a singular use, such as an entertainment-only district. One broad concept I've been thinking of lately is to avoid simply extending Midtown westward and southward. Because this area is so vast and yet so underused, at least at street level, I think we have a unique opportunity to make it feel like its own district, and not just an extension of the concrete canyons of Midtown. One of things I liked about the Jets Stadium plan was the idea to create new, broad boulevards that resemble Park Avenue with greenery in the middle, as well as additional parks that link up with the restored High Line. I think creating a new, beautiful park - perhaps 15 or 20 square blocks in size, would really give this area a distinct feeling. Think about it: the closest parks in the area, besides the thin strip of green eventually to be created along the Hudson, are all the way at 5th Avenue (Madison Square, Union Square, and Bryant), and those are all very small. Why not make a smaller replica of Central Park, complete with lake, forrested paths, and a big, open lawn, that could also be used for free outdoor concerts? I feel this would draw a lot of people to the area, and make adjacent property values high enough to attract prestigious companies (I'm thinking especially of the idea of a biotech sector) and nice residential developments that would feature better-than-average architecture. Now I know some of you will be outraged. Why waste so much prime real estate for parkland? Well, my answer to that is, while we can certainly cover the whole area in high density residential and commercial, we can also build high density in many areas of Midtown, especially Midtown south, by simply bulldozing old 5-20 story buildings. And there will still be 60-75 percent of the area available for development. The point is, you can't just put up parkland anywhere in New York because space is generally limited. And parks definitely raise our quality of life and property values. I mean, just think of what New York would be like without Central Park. It just wouldn't be New York. And with so many more people coming to the area, they need a place to go at lunchtime and after work - a place to sit back and relax - and this will keep people in the area longer to ensure a more vibrant neighborhood. I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that making a grand park the centerpiece of Hudson Yards is the most important first step to take in considering the development of this area. How does everyone feel about this?
You have it backwards. None of these things were built to attract tourists.They were built for New Yorkers. Tourists happen to like them as much as we do. We attract them by being ourselves.
All we have to do is keep New York as New York, not attempt some gimmicky copy of Orlando (with cold winters)
I don't see your point. It would make sense if you implied that these places don't get tourists.Hmmm... Isn't Vancouver, Seattle, San Diego, Paris, London, Syndey... also quite attractive for residents... But don't we get tourists from there as well?
Here's a little neighborhood talk from the NY BLADE
Rail yard holds fate of two ‘gayborhoods’
Stadium defeat means development in Chelsea & Hell’s Kitchen on hold.
By James Withers
Friday, June 17, 2005
The much-ballyhooed West Side Stadium, which would have been home to the New York Jets as well as the linchpin for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2012 Olympic Games bid looks as though it’s ready to join Westway and an expressway across Canal Street in the dustbin of never-to-be building projects.
The mayor has moved on with an alternative site in Queens for a combined temporary Olympic stadium that will be attached to a new stadium for the Mets. Meanwhile, the 13-acre site belonging to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority continues to sit in development purgatory between 11th Avenue and the Hudson River.
While the mayor has set his sites on Queens, many local West Side residents are rejoicing at his defeat. Ever since the project was proposed, it faced fierce opposition from the majority of local residents and New Yorkers in general. In early May, a Quinnipiac University Poll showed that New Yorkers may have been enthusiastic about the 21012 Olympics bid overall.
But 51 percent of New York City voters opposed the West Side stadium bid itself. John Raskin, spokesperson for the Hell’s Kitchen/Hudson Yard Alliance, which led the fight, described the mayor’s defeat as a victory for Hell’s Kitchen, which extends west from the site to 57th Street.
“West Side residents won a big victory yesterday,” Raskin said. “People made it clear that they didn’t want to spend a billion dollars for a football stadium in Manhattan.”
The original idea, an exhibition hall and stadium for the Jets and expansion of the Jacob Javits Center, ran afoul of two of the state’s most powerful political leaders, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Speaker Joseph Bruno, who failed to give support to Bloomberg’s initial plan that would have cost $2.2 billion-dollars.
“With the promise of jobs and posterity, too many New Yorkers have fallen for the relentless and hysterical warnings that we will lose out on our bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics unless — blindly and wholeheartedly — we commit to building this stadium, and this particular stadium only,” Silver said at a June 6 press conference surrounded by anti stadium supporters.
Silver said his opposition was based on his belief that the city could not support a stadium and the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, a region Silver represents in Albany.
“Am I supposed to sell out the community I have fought for and represented for more than a quarter of a century? Am I supposed to turn to my back on Lower Manhattan as it struggles to recover,” Silver rhetorically asked. The decision not to support the stadium construction was made by the state’s Public Authorities Control Board. The two legislative leaders told their board representatives to abstain from a vote that would have allowed the MTA to transfer the land the stadium was to be built on and permitted the state to contribute its part of the public subsidy for the project.
Bloomberg, in a press conference held at City College in Harlem on Wednesday, June 7, repeated his stance the stadium was good for the West Side, an important part of the city’s bid to draw the 2012 Olympics, and would have brought jobs to the city. However, in less than week, the mayor embraced a choice he had earlier dismissed out of hand.
Hell’s Kitchen residents applaud
Raskin supports some kind of expansion of the MTA property, but does not think the Jets’ plan met any type of responsible development criteria.
“We want to see residential space on the property, Open space and access to the river,” said Raskin. “We want the MTA to get as much money as possible for the property. As long as we develop the area well and responsibly, we won’t have to deal with cockamamie stadium schemes in the future.”
Three West Side gay elected officials — State Senator Thomas Duane, City Councilmember Christine Quinn and State Assemblymember Deborah Glick — were in the forefront of the fight against the stadium.
Duane saw the stadium as a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially when compared to the city’s other needs. “The stadium from my district’s point of view would have been a disaster,” Duane told the Blade. “It would have been a waste of taxpayer’s dollars to give so much money away to a wealthy sports team when New York City has so many needs.”
Duane also questioned the mayor’s contention about jobs because of the number of capital projects that need state funding. The list of needs is endless which require a capital commitment which require construction jobs.”
In all of the endless back and forth over the ruined scheme, one particular aspect was missing: what would have been the effect on two neighborhoods that have become the city’s de facto primary gay neighborhoods: Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen. The stadium would have sat on the dividing line that separates Northern Chelsea from the southern point of Hell’s Kitchen.
“I thought a stadium in Manhattan was a terrible idea for everyone, regardless of his or her race, religion or sexual orientation,” said Charles Kaiser, who chronicled Manhattan gay history in “The Gay Metropolis,” in an email. “It was driven entirely by the Mayor’s ego. The fact that it was defeated proves that the system can still work for the public. It will be a much more diverse and interesting neighborhood without it.”
It’s not surprising that Cyd Zeigler Jr., founder and president of Outsports.com a big football fan and a resident of West Chelsea, supported the stadium. Zeigler did not see it as having a negative impact on the area and even suggested that gay property owners lost out when the idea was nixed.
“The lives of gay people aren’t affected any differently than the lives of straight people. There happen to be more gay people in Hell’s Kitchen and Chelsea,” Zeigler said. “For that, more gay people lost out on increased property value and quality of life than if it was in other parts of the city.”
What effect on gay businesses?
Len Evans, the publicist for the Roxy, countered that he believed the team would have drawn crowds not used to seeing men hold hands or women kissing on the street.
“If the stadium was to be put in Chelsea, it would hurt the gay community that is here because it would bring in such a straight crowd, a very straight, young, obnoxious crowd,” Evans said.
“We would lose our synergy and privacy.,” he added. “There would be people from out of town who are not knowledgeable of gay culture and do not understand it. It would have been a downfall to the neighborhoods, and I’m glad it didn’t happen. Chelsea would have would lost its charm.”
Tim Gay, a community activist and former member of the Chelsea community board, agreed. “There would have been no benefit whatsoever to the gay community,” said Gay. “It would have been a detriment because it would have closed the gay clubs on 10th Avenue up to the Jacob Javits.”
Gay also argued that the mammoth project would have destroyed the work gay homeowners have done over the past 25 years to turn Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen into such high-commodity communities. “This thing would have impacted lots if gays and lesbians who took over blighted tenants and really created a neighborhood,” Gay said.
Gil Neary, president of DG Neary Realty, saw it differently and was looking forward to biking to see a few Olympic events.
“I do not see how it would have changed the fabric of the neighborhood,” said Neary. “It’s a huge amount of property and the stadium was only a fraction of the proposal. There was going to be park and a little bit of everything. I thought it was a good place for the venue.” Neary, who helped popularize Chelsea as a gay destination, doesn’t believe the stadium would have much effect on the natural evolution of Chelsea from a “gay ghetto” into a mixed neighborhood.
“More straight people are looking to move to Chelsea than before. There are a lot more straight people coming because it’s a hip neighborhood for them to move into,” Neary said. “If you had an open house, you got mostly gay people. Five years ago, we had people say things like, ‘The whole Eighth Avenue thing is too gay for me’. Now you never you hear that. While it is still considered a gay epicenter, it is not considered only that.”
_________________________________________________
He wants the MTA to get as much money as possible, yet he wants the open space. Who does he thinkg is going to put all that money into the railyards for the "open space"?Raskin supports some kind of expansion of the MTA property, but does not think the Jets’ plan met any type of responsible development criteria.
“We want to see residential space on the property, Open space and access to the river,” said Raskin. “We want the MTA to get as much money as possible for the property. As long as we develop the area well and responsibly, we won’t have to deal with cockamamie stadium schemes in the future.”
Hahahaha. A gay community activist whose last name is Gay. That's priceless. Coincidence? I think not.
Welcome to the illogical world of the NIMBY's. They want a suburban setting in an urban area, low density in a high density area, help for the poor/community/homeless/schools, yet against development that would bring in the jobs/tax revenue necessary to do that. Let someone else worry about how to work that out, they just bitch about it.He wants the MTA to get as much money as possible, yet he wants the open space. Who does he thinkg is going to put all that money into the railyards for the "open space"?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks