Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1Frfox wrote: <<Yes. I am serious. Manhattan (The lower half, anyway) is home to the most expensive and exclusive residential real estate in the nation. There is a reason for that and I can assure you that it's not the most elite residential area in the nation because it's "not desirable." It's expensive because it's super desirable and there's such precious little space.>>
OK, so now you are moving into a discussion of proximity, not architectural beauty and every day quality of life. New York (Manhattan) is a hard place to live in from a quality of life point of view. It is dirty, aggressive - everyone walks fast, extremely noisy and too expensive for the average person. And don't forget that much of NY (stores, the arts) is not exclusive to NY anymore. The BSO and many other orchestras are, IMO, being a classical music type, better than the NY Philharmonic. Yes, there is the Met Opera and the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Natural History, but to live in NY for that? My friend is a life long Manhattan resident and a theater director who was nominated for the Helen Hayes award. His stated opinion to me is that there is little theater you'd want to see in NY. The Irish Repertory Theater comes to town briefly every year, etc. Most of the theater in NY is not considered to be worth your time, he says.
Bands? Well, I am not into bands at all, sorry!
So basically you're saying that NYC is way overrated? I know a ton of people that agree with you on this. They would prefer a much cheaper place and still get the same amenities that you get in NYC.
1Frfox wrote: <<Yes. I am serious. Manhattan (The lower half, anyway) is home to the most expensive and exclusive residential real estate in the nation. There is a reason for that and I can assure you that it's not the most elite residential area in the nation because it's "not desirable." It's expensive because it's super desirable and there's such precious little space.>>
OK, so now you are moving into a discussion of proximity, not architectural beauty and every day quality of life. New York (Manhattan) is a hard place to live in from a quality of life point of view. It is dirty, aggressive - everyone walks fast, extremely noisy and too expensive for the average person.
I'm in a pretty good position to look at this particular question because I basically split my weeks between these two places. In the debate between you two, I come out in the middle.
Personally, I tend to agree with Martha that Boston looked nicer without all the skyscrapers (though I wasn't really around to see it). I will say I really like the Hancock building and I'm fine with the Pru. Looking over at the Back Bay from MIT, what I really dislike are those damn apartments. Hideous compared to the townhouses to the north. I know, though, that LR is looking at this from the perspective of city planning, and from that perspective it's important to be open to some height so crucial jobs don't leave Boston for a car-dependent place like Framingham (or for some other metro entirely).
I agree with LR that there are a lot of people drawn to living in Manhattan because it offers an array of restaurants, cultural activities (including BANDS), and stimulation that few urban centers in the world can match. But I don't think Manhattan is super-desirable or super-expensive directly because it has so many high-rises, but rather in spite of it.
New York City is a huge city that offers the best career opportunities in a lot of fields, including a lot of high-income fields. There are a lot of overpaid (ahem, Wall Street) people who, because of their long hours and a desire to be at the center of the action, will pay what it takes to live in Manhattan. Because it's a physically small place surrounded by water, and many people commute by mass transit, proximity to work is more important. Unlike, say, Tulsa, where you can live "7 miles" from your job and that's really not a big deal, being 7 miles from your job in New York can turn your commute into a living hell.
Sheer necessity, as much as desirability, helps to explain why so many people choose to live in Manhattan. The level of demand and the bedrock below the soil explain why so many high-rises have been built there. But I don't think people are choosing Manhattan because they love spending their days in shadow-filled canyons. I think many people would like lower Manhattan, or Midtown, better if there were a little more sunlight and a somewhat more human scale.
Indeed, the most popular residential areas in Manhattan are places like the West Village and Upper West Side, where there are fewer high-rises and more access to parks. Unless they're 120-hour-a-week bankers or something, even Manhattan residents prefer to live away from the tallest buildings and only go to the Financial District or the heart of Midtown, skyscraper heaven, because they have to for work.
Basically, I think the benefits of Manhattan living derive from the presence of high-rises only to the extent that (1) the existence of high-rises is needed to make the high number of jobs and residents possible, and (2) the existence of those jobs and residents is needed to make the more enjoyable features of New York possible.
Martha, I'm going to try and reply to most of what you wrote in the past few posts. Before I start, I want to apologize for the condescending tone of my first response... you lashed into me and I was sort of caught off guard because my passion (and my career) is based in bettering urban environments. Because of that I took a rather rude approach in response that I regret after reading it again.
Anyway, I don't think you and I have SUCH differing points of view. There are differences for sure, but not to an extreme. Our perspectives are a bit different though. I'm a little less than 1/3 your age. I haven't seen what you have seen. The changes you've witnessed first hand I've seen only in photographs. I get a kick out of the fact that the Custom House Tower and the Pru were the only high rises around when you were growing up. It's funny because those are two buildings on opposite ends of the spectrum... the Custom House Tower is an elegant slender tower while the Pru is a hulking Modernist box (but, I admit, I like it despite it's flaws).
So I'll begin. I understand you not liking the views distorted by the new towers. Seeing as (for the most part) those ubiquitous modern towers have been around as long as I've been alive, it's easier for me to get used to them as they're really all I've ever known. That said, I like the contrasts created. The Custom House tower still stands out as one of the most remarkable and notable highrises in the city even though it's 90 years old. The steeples of the Old North Church, The Park Street Church, and the towers of Trinity and the Old South Church still dominate the streetscape and command respect (and awe in many cases) from pedestrians. Morover, the way they contrast with the the towers that surround them provides stunning and unique new perspectives (I still love the view from Memorial Drive... Beacon Hill and Back Bay are still very visible and offer a great contrast to the highrises behind them). I think one perspective that summarizes it best is when you're standing on State St. looking West towards the Old State house and One Boston Place (an otherwise ugly, generic highrise) is towering behind it. It's a view that very few other cities in the world could offer (actually, London with it's new high rises is one of the few that can). I love it. That view alone is the only reason I can not only tolerate, but ENJOY the One Boston Place building.
That said, I'm not pro-height for the sake of height. I can sympathize right with you when I say that Boston was left with some incredibly ugly highrises from the 60s 70s and 80s. One Beacon, One Boston Place, Federal Reserve Tower, One Financial, First National Bank Tower, One Post Office Square, etc (I really could go on). These buildings didn't just change the views, they replaced them with ugly buildings. However, my gripe with those towers is more the architecture than the height. Generic 1970s style boxes are a blight in many ways. To look at Boston's skyline and see those buildings can make one hate them, but imagine if they were done correctly. If they were done in a similar style to Custom House Tower (to get an idea, look at a picture of Manhattan's skyline in the 1920s) or some of the more modern highrises like the Bank of China Tower (http://www.maxpine.com.hk/hk/images/460110908.jpg - broken link) (links are to photos for reference) or the Museum of Modern Art Tower (MoMA) proposal in New York (perfectly scaled, gorgeous architecture). Even Frank Gehry's new project in New York City would work well (he did MIT's Stata Center). In Boston, I don't see height as the issue as much as I see the architecture of most of the tallest buildings as the problem.
If done right, there's no reason many of those towers couldn't be a great compliment to the existing urban fabric (the fabric that makes Boston so great). This is starting to happen. Exchange Place is a good example of preserving a nice existing structure while building in its place. In that photo, you can see the glass tower rising out of the existing 1896 structure. It's the best of both worlds. Near South Station, a similar project is under construction at Russia Wharf. It's a modern high rise that utilizes the historic structure underneath it. From the street level, it appears as if the building has been there for a century or more (because it has) yet the new tower rises out of it. While it's currently on hold, the One Franklin (Filene's) project in Downtown Crossing is yet another example of this... they're preserving the 1920s facade while building a tower on top of it.
I know you don't like what's happened with the roof line of the Financial District, but in my mind, it escaped a few eras where historic buildings were cleared in order to make room for new ones relatively lightly. Sure, there are some blunders, but the streetwall is very much preserved throughout the area. I think it's one of the best urban spaces in Boston from an aesthetic standpoint because there is such a blend of architectural styles as well as heights. Furthermore, Post Office Square is relatively new and perhaps one of Boston's best urban spaces (the canyons created by the high-rises enhance it).You mentioned you hate what happened there up until Quincy Market/Faneuil Hall. See, I see it differently. I think the WORST of the demolition and clearing happened AT City Hall. The leveled a vibrant urban neighborhood to make room for that dead, ugly plaza. The land there is useless. I think that is one of the saddest examples of poor development and "progress" in Boston (and height had NOTHING to do with it). The West End (in its current state) is another sad example as is the scar (aka "Rose Kennedy Greenway") that sits where the Central Artery once was (which was also one a great urban neighborhood).
My point to you is that Boston is losing a lot of its history, NOT because it's building upward, but because it's building OUTWARD. I have been searching google, but can't find what I'm looking for... there's a picture out there somewhere that has two maps: One of Central Boston in the 1950s and One of Boston today. Many of the intricate small blocks that existed then are now gone, only to be replaced by super blocks (i.e. city hall plaza). It was a great example of how Boston is losing it's historic grid. That, to me anyway, is far scarier than a skyscraper. If we continue to allow historic buildings (or whole blocks!) to be demolished for landscrapers and wasted space (I think much of the Greenway is wasted and some should be opened for development), it will eventually be gone. Building tall (in an appropriate manner like Exchange Place, Russia Wharf, Filene's, etc) can actually help to preserve the history and existing fabric of Boston. The boxes built in the 70s didn't do that, but again, it was a flaw in planning... not the fault of the height.
I still strongly disagree about Manhattan. I mentioned proximity before, but the excellent Quality of Life and Architectural beauty are also reasons Manhattan is the best of the best when it comes to living. YOU on the other hand are making highly subjective points about what you (one individual) aren't really looking for. Manhattan offers an incredible array of architecture. Many neighborhoods have the grand old mansions (like Back Bay), while some have the Iron front buildings (think SoHo) and other have gorgeous brownstones. Some have warehouses or tenements converted into modern apts or condos. Others still have shiny new condo buildings or historic art deco condos (I could go on and on). There is no shortage of architectural beauty on Manhattan. I beg to differ. Now, you say Manhattan doesn't offer a good quality of life because it's, "dirty, aggressive - everyone walks fast, extremely noisy." Well those are ALL highly subjective opinions that you've formed. I've never found it dirty (actually, much of Manhattan is pretty clean for an urban area). I've found aspects of living in Boston to be much more aggressive (i.e. walking, driving, etc) than most of Manhattan. The noise and fast walking are all very subjective.
The fact of the matter is that Manhattan is the best of the best when it comes to urban living. You may find it overrated or too "dirty, aggressive - everyone walks fast, extremely noisy." But SOOOO many people don't and that's why they live there. Manhattan is home to the best restaurants, shops (some are chains and located elsewhere, but many, MANY, aren't), and entertainment you'll find in the world. Living amongst those things makes for a GREAT quality of life which is why the area is in such high demand and as a result so expensive. You're not the only one who doesn't want to live there for sure, but you'd have to be blind not to see that Manhattan provides the ultimate in urban living which is why people pay SO much to live there. You say "proximity" isn't important, but I think proximity is a huge factor in the quality of life (the closer you are, the easier it is to get there). So I would add proximity to the list of amenities you get in Manhattan that you don't get (or at least not to the same degree) anywhere else. Your husband may not like it, but millions of others do which is why they want to pay more to live there. It's really a simple matter of basic economics... supply v. demand.... The demand is high, the supply is limited and prices reflect that. I know you don't like Manhattan personally, but I don't see how you can argue that it's not one of the ultimate urban environments on the planet. Your wants/needs are different, but that doesn't mean that Manhattan is a bad place.
There isn't a place on earth that you can get the same or better amenities that you can get in Manhattan for cheaper. If there was a place that you could find them all, it would quickly become as expensive (after all, people are paying for those amenities). However, people may find that they can get all that THEY (individually) want somewhere outside of Manhattan. For example, you mention that you have little interest in bands so the fact that there are good ones playing in Manhattan regularly doesn't matter. Someone who doesn't like ethnic food may not care about Manhattan's ethnic restaurants so they can live somewhere just as happily without them. It's a matter of personal preference, but those who want ALL that a city can offer will go to Manhattan (or one of the few cities that rivals it like London, Paris, or Tokyo). Boston's a beautiful city (my favorite), but to say that it offers all that Manhattan does at less of a cost is fallacy. However, for many (myself included) it offers more than enough to be content with.
I will write in response later, sorry, no time now, but I do want to tell you that the correct name for it is not the "Custom House tower" but the "Customs House" (plural, as in "customs broker"). Also, to be honest, I would not call it a tower and never heard anyone call it that, including my family members who actually worked in that building. It was simply called "the Customs House". But, suit yourself if you like to call it a "tower" <s> and there is nothing wrong with doing that, either.
I will write in response later, sorry, no time now, but I do want to tell you that the correct name for it is not the "Custom House tower" but the "Customs House" (plural, as in "customs broker"). Also, to be honest, I would not call it a tower and never heard anyone call it that, including my family members who actually worked in that building. It was simply called "the Customs House". But, suit yourself if you like to call it a "tower" <s> and there is nothing wrong with doing that, either.
I know it's a U.S. Customs House. It was built in 1837 without the tower part (which was added in 1915). The tower portion of the building is often referred to as the "Custom House Tower." It may not be correct, but it's what many people refer to it as. The original building was a U.S. Customs House so I'm assuming that either is commonly accepted although "Customs House" may be a more accurate description of the purpose the building once served (It's now a Marriott Hotel).
I know it's a U.S. Customs House. It was built in 1837 without the tower part (which was added in 1915). The tower portion of the building is often referred to as the "Custom House Tower." It may not be correct, but it's what many people refer to it as. The original building was a U.S. Customs House so I'm assuming that either is commonly accepted although "Customs House" may be a more accurate description of the purpose the building once served (It's now a Marriott Hotel).
Well, my grandfather was owner of the John A. Conkey company, a customs brokerage firm, on Broad Street, Boston, and a licensed customs broker, my uncle was a customs attorney, as is my brother, and my brother is also a customs broker as well as customs attorney. (A rare specialty. My family has been in the customs business since the early 1800, continuously.) The word is customs, with an s, and I know that there are articles which you probably have seen which call it custom, but trust me on this one, they are using incorrect grammar. It is grammatically incorrect to write "Custom Building" and it is also not the term ever used in my family. The "tower" word: Well, my family never ever used the term Customs Tower or Customs Building Tower. The usage was, by my cousin, who worked in that building, for 40 years, always "I worked in the Customs Building". She never referred to it as the Customs Building Tower even though she did work in the tower part of the building.
Maybe my grandfather, cousin, brother and mother were all wrong. But I somehow think that they would have known what to call it and how to spell it, especially my cousin, the one who worked in that building for decades.
I don't know what else I can tell you. Suit yourself. Believe me, or believe some article which someone wrote.
Yes, I'd rather live in Manhattan. Can I afford it. Nope.
I have one more year to go here, and if I miss anything, it will be the architecture. I'm thinking about Seattle, San Diego and a couple of other places.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
