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.
Next time you’re in the upper 70s on the east side of Amsterdam Avenue, you might want to get your camera ready. That’s because there’s a house on the roof of a building on 78th between Broadway and Amsterdam.
Next time you’re in the upper 70s on the east side of Amsterdam Avenue, you might want to get your camera ready. That’s because there’s a house on the roof of a building on 78th between Broadway and Amsterdam.
Maybe my post will be removed for irrelevance again, but I used to know someone who lived in that Tudor building in the photo :-). I have been inside it sometime around 1985 - the house on the roof behind it wasn't there that I noticed.
In Boston's Back Bay, you can see worse. People put what really appears to be a mobile home on the roof of an 1880s brick building. It is not even rare.
In Boston's Back Bay, you can see worse. People put what really appears to be a mobile home on the roof of an 1880s brick building. It is not even rare.
Yeah but this looks like an actual house. Not a mobile home. I wonder which is worse. To stick a full house or a mobile home up there. Both, are ridiculous. How did they ever get permission? And can a roof actually support such a thing in the first place??
If I were to stick dog poo with a couple of 2 inch nails
they would call it architecture. This is not creativity.
This is insanity not fit for human consumption.
Maybe my post will be removed for irrelevance again, but I used to know someone who lived in that Tudor building in the photo :-). I have been inside it sometime around 1985 - the house on the roof behind it wasn't there that I noticed.
In Boston's Back Bay, you can see worse. People put what really appears to be a mobile home on the roof of an 1880s brick building. It is not even rare.
That's not irrelevant. It adds to interest in the picture.
Huh? No. There's nothing wrong with this. It passed code inspection, the building must have had some unused development rights. There's nothing wrong with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Retired
The following is only my opinion:
If I were to stick dog poo with a couple of 2 inch nails
they would call it architecture. This is not creativity.
This is insanity not fit for human consumption.
Huh? No. There's nothing wrong with this. It passed code inspection, the building must have had some unused development rights. There's nothing wrong with this.
There may be nothing wrong in terms of building code, but it is not very aesthetically pleasing. You could probably put a pagoda roof, or a four-level garage, or a Ferris wheel on the top of Carnegie Hall, but it would look a bit idiotic. The owner guy is an architect... I don't understand it. A ski chalet on the top of NYC residential brick tower with Tudor facade? Skiing facilities aren't particularly associated with the 13th-14th century Tudor dynasty, or with the Upper West Side. To me, the only aesthetically acceptable feature of it is that you can't readily see it from the street.
Last edited by elnrgby; 04-11-2020 at 08:27 PM..
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.
Both, are ridiculous. How did they ever get permission? And can a roof actually support such a thing in the first place??
