Tapatalk

NYC central park reimagined...

NYC central park reimagined...

85
New MemberNew Member
85

PostMar 31, 2016#1

A wild idea, but very interesting imagining the possibilities... only in NY.

http://www.evolo.us/competition/new-york-horizon/

788
Super MemberSuper Member
788

PostMar 31, 2016#2

Yeah interesting idea. I'm sure it would be an even bigger draw for tourists, although it would be very expensive and reduce the amount of usable park land for people that live there. Didn't their subway system flood recently during big storms?

472
Full MemberFull Member
472

PostMar 31, 2016#3

Seems like a pretty terrible idea at odds with the Olmsted plan and the Mannahatta Project's efforts to restore ecological communities. I am sure it would also fill up with water and require a vast system of pumps completely unable to keep things from being soggy all the time.

1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostMar 31, 2016#4

A Sunken Skyscraper in Central Park Is the Worst Idea in History - CityLab
This idea is impossible. It isn’t a good idea to tear up Central Park. That’s a bad idea. That’s an immoral idea. Or it would be an immoral idea, if it were a serious proposal, but it is not. It is deeply unserious. But that isn’t the problem, really. The problem is Contestism.

1,612
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,612

PostMar 31, 2016#5

CarexCurator wrote:Seems like a pretty terrible idea at odds with the Olmsted plan and the Mannahatta Project's efforts to restore ecological communities. I am sure it would also fill up with water and require a vast system of pumps completely unable to keep things from being soggy all the time.
I don't think that's what the Manhattan Project's goal was in the slightest. Quite the contrary, Oppenheimer & Fermi were helping to destroy ecology.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMar 31, 2016#6

Yeah, this concept is so far removed from any sense of possibility that I just don't see how it was named the winner. Guess you'd have to read the competition rules.

472
Full MemberFull Member
472

PostMar 31, 2016#7

ricke002 wrote:
CarexCurator wrote:Seems like a pretty terrible idea at odds with the Olmsted plan and the Mannahatta Project's efforts to restore ecological communities. I am sure it would also fill up with water and require a vast system of pumps completely unable to keep things from being soggy all the time.
I don't think that's what the Manhattan Project's goal was in the slightest. Quite the contrary, Oppenheimer & Fermi were helping to destroy ecology.
Was that a joke? :roll:

Start here: https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_sanderso ... anguage=en

1,612
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,612

PostMar 31, 2016#8

CarexCurator wrote:
ricke002 wrote:
CarexCurator wrote:Seems like a pretty terrible idea at odds with the Olmsted plan and the Mannahatta Project's efforts to restore ecological communities. I am sure it would also fill up with water and require a vast system of pumps completely unable to keep things from being soggy all the time.
I don't think that's what the Manhattan Project's goal was in the slightest. Quite the contrary, Oppenheimer & Fermi were helping to destroy ecology.
Was that a joke? :roll:

Start here: https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_sanderso ... anguage=en
Only sort of.

YOU start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMar 31, 2016#9

You guys do realize that The Manhattan Project and The Mannahatta Project are two completely different things, right?

1,612
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,612

PostMar 31, 2016#10

framer wrote:You guys do realize that The Manhattan Project and The Mannahatta Project are two completely different things, right?
I just don't think Curex was on board with my sarcasm/vained ignorace

472
Full MemberFull Member
472

PostMar 31, 2016#11

Curex! :oops:

85
New MemberNew Member
85

PostApr 02, 2016#12

ricke002 wrote:
CarexCurator wrote:Seems like a pretty terrible idea at odds with the Olmsted plan and the Mannahatta Project's efforts to restore ecological communities. I am sure it would also fill up with water and require a vast system of pumps completely unable to keep things from being soggy all the time.
I don't think that's what the Manhattan Project's goal was in the slightest. Quite the contrary, Oppenheimer & Fermi were helping to destroy ecology.
LOL!

PostApr 02, 2016#13

come on people, these are just pie-in-the-sky ideas to give others meat to chew on in the future. i was reading over that link someone supplied above where the author is complaining about the immorality of the idea. really? :roll: yes, you have to read over these ideas with a grain of salt, but i appreciate the vision that some of these proposals have.

i love the idea of making the walls of the sunken park into a below ground skyscraper... with views of mountains no less!