Page 6 of 7

Re: New York City

Posted: June 3rd, 2016, 8:18 am
by mister.shoes
Haven't read this yet, but it appears to be an incredible look at our tallest city: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... -life.html

Re: New York City

Posted: June 3rd, 2016, 12:06 pm
by mister.shoes
mister.shoes wrote:Haven't read this yet, but it appears to be an incredible look at our tallest city: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... -life.html
Star Tribune Talkers email just now. *sigh*
Everybody loves skyscrappers: This weekend's edition of the New York Times Magazine is packed with great storytelling and even greater photography on the world of skyscrappers. They've got stories about penthouse dwellers, daredevil photographers, skyscrapper physics, even a photo essay about the brave folks charged with constructing Manhattan's tallest buildings.
"Skyscrappers" three times! I guess if you're going to get it wrong, commit to it.

Re: New York City

Posted: June 3rd, 2016, 1:55 pm
by kirby96
Passive aggressive anti-density author?

Re: New York City

Posted: July 21st, 2016, 11:18 pm
by Tiller
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/ny ... tions.html

New York's subways are getting much needed improvements.

Re: New York City

Posted: July 23rd, 2016, 11:41 am
by mulad
Sounds like they're getting fairly serious about building a substantial number of open-gangway subway trains to make it easier to move between cars, which helps even out passenger loads and increases capacity. Their initial plans to build a token number of them made me feel that they were trying to sabotage the idea. ("We built a small number but they were too expensive to build, didn't have any spare parts, and none of our maintenance workers knew how to repair them." Well, duh.)

Re: New York City

Posted: November 2nd, 2016, 9:33 am
by intercomnut
City reveals possible routes for a Brooklyn-Queens streetcar. Looking to keep it in exclusive ROW for as much of the route as possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/nyreg ... ueens.html

Re: New York City

Posted: November 13th, 2016, 3:29 pm
by Anondson
Gondolas in NYC to partially replace L train after it is taken off line for 18 months of repairs?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pol ... it+Twitter

Re: New York City

Posted: November 13th, 2016, 7:57 pm
by mplsjaromir
Unrealistic.

Re: New York City

Posted: January 2nd, 2017, 4:43 pm
by John21

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 10:50 am
by talindsay
That's a great piece - at the strategic level it gets at the big issues - but it feels like more wheel-spinning because it doesn't get at what can actually be done to alleviate the issues. What's really needed is for somebody to look at the specific economics of the grands projets in Paris and the specific economics of this NYC subway debacle, and explain in practical terms what would need to change to get even remotely similar results in NYC. Paris is both older and denser than New York City, and the 14 ("meteor") doesn't avoid difficult areas to build; so the excuses about density and infrastructure really can't substantially explain the costs.

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 11:38 am
by MNdible
While I don't think that it explains all (or even most) of the cost differential, I do question your argument that Paris is denser than Midtown Manhattan.

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 12:28 pm
by talindsay
To be clear, I said Paris is denser than New York City - Paris is the densest large city in the western world, and has more than twice the density of New York City. Of course whole-city densities aren't the most relevant. It would be as accurate, and more relevant, to say that the area they're looking to build the Second Street Subway is of similar density to where Paris is expanding the 14, which still means that density isn't an explanatory factor for the difference in cost.

The whole city of Paris has an average population density of ~55,000 people per square mile. The whole city of New York has an average population density of ~26,000 people per square mile, which is less than half that of Paris, but of course New York's population density is lumpier than that of Paris.

Looking at specific regions, the 17th Arrondissement of Paris has a population density of ~80,000, assuming the 2009 number of ~168,000 people inside its 2.1 square miles. Manhattan has a population density of ~70,000, assuming the 2015 number of 1.6 million in its 23 square miles. Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find data on Midtown Manhattan specifically.

Regardless, it's certainly safe to say that the two are comparable.

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 12:41 pm
by MNdible
You've been to Midtown, right? I know you're a francophile, but there is nowhere in Paris that is comparable. Remember, residents living in an area is only part of the equation, as you also are introducing a much greater number of daytime transient workers in a location like Midtown.

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 1:12 pm
by EOst
Very little of the new Second Avenue line goes through Midtown. Mostly the Upper East Side.

(FYI: 17th arr. population density = 28k / square km; UES pop. density = 46k, almost exactly twice as dense)

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 1:21 pm
by mplsjaromir
The 2nd Ave Subway is not Midtown. The Upper East Side/Yorkville where the 2nd exists today is very dense, census districts range in density of 90,000 to 200,000 people per square mile. Density alone would not explain why it costs 10 time what it does in Paris. Like the article says it is a mixture of expensive design, overstaffed (almost exclusively white ) crews and political disharmony. Another factor which also gets brought up often is that US infrastructure relies on consultants more so than other jurisdictions. If the US Federal Government or New York state had people on staff who could do the work of the consultants you would likely see a decrease in unit cost. But free market efficiency!

Re: New York City

Posted: January 5th, 2017, 2:01 pm
by talindsay
Okay, 207,000 people in 1.7 sq. mi. on the Upper East Side, 122,000 / sq mi, is substantially higher. I don't imagine that deep-boring under 80,000 / sq mi density would be measurably easier than 122,000 / sq mi density, but it is substantially higher.

Re: New York City

Posted: January 17th, 2017, 5:25 pm
by Didier
Where the 2nd Avenue Subway Went Wrong

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... l_facebook

Re: New York City

Posted: January 30th, 2017, 8:22 pm
by Anondson
How New York's airports got to be so hated.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/makin ... 14946.html

Re: New York City

Posted: February 1st, 2017, 9:14 am
by mplsjaromir
Anondson wrote:
January 30th, 2017, 8:22 pm
How New York's airports got to be so hated.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/makin ... 14946.html
The worst article I have read in a while, a truly dumb piece of work.

Re: New York City

Posted: March 22nd, 2017, 7:26 pm
by Anondson
A 4,000 foot "long" tower bending in an arch proposed for Manhattan?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/trave ... eiled.html