AptCommunity
New Member
Thanks, I agree with all your points, and I’m also very curious about the risk profile and the slope.
One point of clarification: I agree that many people in our building are scared of losing their home. But I want to clarify that that’s not why I personally oppose the new building. I am a bit of a nomad and I am fine with giving up my home if I felt like it was a benefit to the city. I am pro-housing and not sentimental about the past. I believe we need new housing and infrastructure. I have lived in apartment in NY where a subway was being built under my feet and I loved it even though it was loud and kinda crazy and the floor shook. For me, personal inconvenience doesn’t matter when you feel like the project is an overall benefit to the city.
The points I’m trying to make here are 1) the current building may not look like a shiny rendering — and the current exterior is rundown — but the bones and basic ideas of it are things that should be emulated, not destroyed. The interior is incredible and the architecture itself supports and nurtures the people who live in it, which is very rare. It is actually a cut above most of what’s out there 2) part of what makes both 40 and 50 Park architecturally significant is the experience, social engagement & quality of life they create inside the building— and these experiences were part of the architectural movements that these buildings came from 3) even with that, I would support demolition if the tradeoffs made sense, but the trade-offs here really don’t make sense because the new building actually has widespread downsides and doesn’t benefit as city as a whole
One point of clarification: I agree that many people in our building are scared of losing their home. But I want to clarify that that’s not why I personally oppose the new building. I am a bit of a nomad and I am fine with giving up my home if I felt like it was a benefit to the city. I am pro-housing and not sentimental about the past. I believe we need new housing and infrastructure. I have lived in apartment in NY where a subway was being built under my feet and I loved it even though it was loud and kinda crazy and the floor shook. For me, personal inconvenience doesn’t matter when you feel like the project is an overall benefit to the city.
The points I’m trying to make here are 1) the current building may not look like a shiny rendering — and the current exterior is rundown — but the bones and basic ideas of it are things that should be emulated, not destroyed. The interior is incredible and the architecture itself supports and nurtures the people who live in it, which is very rare. It is actually a cut above most of what’s out there 2) part of what makes both 40 and 50 Park architecturally significant is the experience, social engagement & quality of life they create inside the building— and these experiences were part of the architectural movements that these buildings came from 3) even with that, I would support demolition if the tradeoffs made sense, but the trade-offs here really don’t make sense because the new building actually has widespread downsides and doesn’t benefit as city as a whole
