The George Washington Bridge and the New York City skyline on a summer’s evening

Share this on Facebook download .zip with all pictures

>it is devoid of character and adds nothing to the urban fabric.
>It’s a panopticon to gaze from, not something that adds to the view

Slow down, Foucault. Yeah, it’s going to have some great views…

>It has no sense of its place

Disagree. Fine, make it into a metaphor for income inequality or whatever — even though, honestly, I think you’re stretching on that too. Park Avenue has been home to the elite for over a century, so I really just don’t get the venom that this building is subjected to on this website. It’s like they built this tall building and it finally made you realize that people this rich exist.

I just don’t buy your architectural criticisms, but fine, that’s completely subjective. It’s a minimalist structure that avoids ornamentation, but it’s also not without some interesting visual features, most of which haven’t been revealed because the building *isn’t even finished*. IMO the most interesting feature will be that the building will be broken up into segments that ‘float’ on top of each other. You can start to get an idea of how this will look [here](https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodichi/21608914435/). Otherwise, does it stick out? Absolutely. But it won’t for long, and I think that’s a good thing. Midtown has been a plateau of boxy black office buildings since the 60s, so it’s good that there will be a few more peaks.

>This title says it all: Why Billionaires Don’t Pay Property Taxes in New York: It’s the extreme end game of a tax code that shifts the burden from owners to renters, and from the wealthy to the poor

Yep, this is a problem, but it’s a problem that the city created itself with misplaced good intentions via the [421a tax abatement](http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/06/12/new_yorks_great_421a_debate_the_uncertain_future_of_trading_affordable_housing_for_tax_breaks.php), which allows developers to incorporate a percentage of affordable housing in their buildings in return for *temporary* tax breaks. The intent here was not just to subsidize affordable housing, but to create a greater diversity of incomes in wealthier neighborhoods. I’m of the opinion that such a policy just doesn’t make sense, and that instead it would make more sense to skip the abatement and just direct the tax revenue to subsidized housing in neighborhoods where people who live there will actually be able to afford a trip to the grocery store.

And let’s not exaggerate and say that these billionaires pay ‘nothing’ in property taxes. Their effective rates are lower because of these programs, and what they will pay is insignificant to their overall wealth, but they’re still going to be paying significantly more than the average New Yorker.

Latest Comments
  1. Tiaeld December 24, 2016
  2. Garan December 8, 2016
  3. Chaiwor November 7, 2016
  4. MilesVickers October 30, 2016
  5. Reavis2000 October 29, 2016
  6. LeonardEdlund October 23, 2016
  7. persaud October 19, 2016
  8. VinitaRezendes October 12, 2016
  9. Iworo October 6, 2016
  10. Inest August 31, 2016
  11. Undihin July 14, 2016
  12. Adir June 12, 2016
  13. WendellAhmad May 26, 2016
  14. Mcaaast9 May 16, 2016
  15. Esstiaing April 29, 2016
  16. poissonman88 April 12, 2016
  17. Esstiaing March 11, 2016
  18. Emtny February 12, 2016
  19. Nyest January 20, 2016
  20. MilagroConti January 15, 2016
  21. Rel January 13, 2016
  22. chrisman9020 December 4, 2015
  23. Eldrdan October 31, 2015
  24. sarkisian93 October 30, 2015
  25. Lordnys October 8, 2015
Comments are closed.
Click on Like Page, to get new amazing photo every day on facebook.