Comments on: Steven Holl’s Proposal for the Hudson Yards

By: cb

cb — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:06:57 +0000

@mr yanos.
why?

By: Christopher Yeanos

Christopher Yeanos — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:47:18 +0000

When one travels the world and witnesses the skylines recently developed in Dubai, Shanghai and Berlin, a project of this scope and magnitude is sorely needed for the NYC skyline.

By: Samina Ali

Samina Ali — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:53:02 +0000

Nice try but if he is really trying to maximize the solar gain in all his buildings and the park, he should have had less high buildings on the south side and taller solar slice buildings on the north side. this way all the buildings will get significant solar gain.

By: wlai

wlai — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:17:52 +0000

oops. that should say: “a project can’t be built unless it’s economically feasible, and so i’d imagine building 3 stories structures on the lot is going to work.”

also, look at the pdf, there’s alot more information there, before everyone jumps in criticizes. graywater/storm water recycling. wind turbine on top of skyscrapers. using the river to cool. green roofs. 50% less energy demand. adding alot of planting and removing a giant baking island of heat in the railyards today.

and there’s also information on why they build fewer but taller towers, vs. another design to build many smaller buildings. basically you can’t build it and have the rail yards working, which is a precondition.

By: wlai

wlai — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:58:50 +0000

i think you are taking the design illustration too literally. the illustration is not a operator’s manual. the building is illustrated as light on dark background because it makes the building’s design stand out.

also, you have got to remember that land use in manhattan is very different than most parts of the world. as the article suggests, it’s the “last undeveloped site” in midtown, and the land is going to cost alot of money. a project can’t be built unless it’s economically feasible, and so i’d imagine building 3 stories structures on the lot is going to work.

i haven’t read anywhere that says they aren’t going to LEED certified, how they will be dealing with grey water, etc. deducing all that from two pictures is perhaps premature. skyscrappers have their own tradeoffs that are different than smaller buildings. and putting alot of people in the city can be more green than having urban sprawl taking over the countryside, not to mention the energy savings of having population that can use mass transit or walk to places, rather than have everyone drive in the suburbs and country sides.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:33:12 +0000

I agree with lilleuldav. How can this be hailed as a great example of green sustainable development…? It doesn’t look like there’s much though to natural air conditioning, grey water recycling, self sufficient power generation, let alone the fact that once again it’s massively going to increase the light pollution… Why does no-one think about this? I look around (in Toronto, Ontario), and every morning & night I see swathes of office lights on with no-one in the office, massive plumes of smoke coming from the tops of the towers, too many cars, and lots of flat concrete roofs! Unless new projects actively start to tackle this, the re-conditioned units are never going to up their standards!

By: la moda

la moda — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:46:27 +0000

I disagree with this project altogether. Giant towers spaced so closely together blocking lots of mid morning and afternoon sun will make the space in between absolutely dreadful.. natural light is a given in green work, but I’m afraid the ego has placed it second fiddle.
And seriously, will there be operable windows in those things?
I think it’s terrible.

By: Ste

Ste — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:26:36 +0000

Yes, that is what stroke me as well.. nice design but that’s a lot of light pollution! All the light that makes the buildings shine is just energy wasted.

By: litteuldav

litteuldav — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:45:38 +0000

This is a marvelous project

But why leave all those lights on at night in offices ?
Look like it is a corporate bad habit to forget switching some 1000’s Watt worth of lightning all night long … on your side of the Atlantic :-)

RRR : 1st R is Reduce, Reduce energy consumption by switching off most of the lights in an empty office.