corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:

Your point is that the city shouldnt spend money on anything but basic shit like parking lots/[quote]

It isn't, but I'm not surprised you're so stupid that you think that's my point.

[quote]and things like the highline which has brought world class attention to nyc

Bullshit. It's a tiny addition to the biggest tourist city in the entire country/hemisphere/world. Good for NYC, it's quite literally one of a thousand things to see and do as a tourist there.

Quote:

are a complete waste of money.

For this city? Yes it is

Quote:

Again the highline aspiration is a bit much for JC and i dont think its necessary for the embankment but theres still room for basic historic conservation especially for public green spaces without blowing obscene amounts of $.

Finally, some sense of reason...

Quote:

Bridges with stairs and fences wont cost millions of dollars and maintenance of the trail itself can be handled by volunteers.

Aaaaaaaand it's gone. You really have zero idea what infrastructure costs, do you. Go look it up. I'll wait.

thor800 wrote:

Your point is that the city shouldnt spend money on anything but basic shit like parking lots/[quote]

It isn't, but I'm not surprised you're so stupid that you think that's my point.

[quote]and things like the highline which has brought world class attention to nyc

are a complete waste of money.

Again the highline aspiration is a bit much for JC and i dont think its necessary for the embankment but theres still room for basic historic conservation especially for public green spaces without blowing obscene amounts of $.

Bridges with stairs and fences wont cost millions of dollars and maintenance of the trail itself can be handled by volunteers.

thor800 wrote:

Your point is that the city shouldnt spend money on anything but basic shit like parking lots and things like the highline which has brought world class attention to nyc are a complete waste of money.

Again the highline aspiration is a bit much for JC and i dont think its necessary for the embankment but theres still room for basic historic conservation especially for public green spaces without blowing obscene amounts of $. Bridges with stairs and fences wont cost millions of dollars and maintenance of the trail itself can be handled by volunteers.

The last thing the city should do is develop it or turn it into a parking lot.

corybraiterman wrote:
i don't, but keep trying and failing. it's pretty funny when people try and make assumptions and fuck them up full 100. you take what might've been a passable insult and fuck it all up with inapplicable stupidity. that and you stupid fuckers can't even argue the substance of my point so you turn into little kids with the insults. you have no backbone, can't argue the point and can't even make a diss that makes sense.

but hey, keep it up, it makes me look better and you look dumber every time.

corybraiterman wrote:
i don't have any kids or a car, but thanks for playing. also i've been living in jersey city for 30 years, so you can SMD

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
The Highline Park in NYC is one of the true jewels of urban public parks in the country, if not the world.

I've seen plenty of bullshit written in my day (this election season has been particularly good for it, but I digress), but this is one of the dumbest pieces of it I've seen in a long while. It's good for one thing and one thing only. To walk in. Literally it. You can't ride a bike, bring your dog, play catch with your kid, hell, given its tourist appeal (because it's fukn downtown manhattan and not residential jersey city), you'll have a hard time jogging it. If memory serves, it is three times the size of the embankment and has one minuscule playground.

Aping the Highline here is the dumbest part of the stupid save the embankment BS that gets put out. Personally, I'd rather it stay the way it is, because at least the city isn't spending millions to build and maintain bridges, fences and entrances. Jewel of parks my ass. Fuck outta here.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
The Highline Park in NYC is one of the true jewels of urban public parks in the country, if not the world.

I've seen plenty of bullshit written in my day (this election season has been particularly good for it, but I digress), but this is one of the dumbest pieces of it I've seen in a long while. It's good for one thing and one thing only. To walk in. Literally it. You can't ride a bike, bring your dog, play catch with your kid, hell, given its tourist appeal (because it's fukn downtown manhattan and not residential jersey city), you'll have a hard time jogging it. If memory serves, it is three times the size of the embankment and has one minuscule playground.

Aping the Highline here is the dumbest part of the stupid save the embankment BS that gets put out. Personally, I'd rather it stay the way it is, because at least the city isn't spending millions to build and maintain bridges, fences and entrances. Jewel of parks my ass. Fuck outta here.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
The Highline Park in NYC is one of the true jewels of urban public parks in the country, if not the world.

nafco wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
yes, that would be the entire purpose of it. now local politics being the shithole that it is, obviously it would go to fund a couple dozen new beach homes for some cronies, but you can't operate under the (generally correct) assumption that monies raised will not actually be used for their intended effect.

here's the thing - no one loses anything. we've never had the use of that entire area since they demolished the connecting bridges what... 12? 15? years ago. even then, most people never went up there because there was nothing to do. people would lose that giant ugly wall that's been slowly crumbling and occasionally getting tagged. it'd be a lost opportunity if you really look at it like that, but no one's taking a park away from you or anyone else - just the opportunity to make all the taxpayers spend more money on an excessive design because building and maintaining 5 bridges, about 15 blocks worth of fencing, multiple entrance and exit points including ADA compliant ones is wrapped up in "we want moar park!"

fk that. get a ground level park. get nutbag yvonne happy and make one or two of those blocks a municipal/residential parking lot. spend the money on the shit we need rather than excessive futility.

nice things are nice. parks are nice. so's the new world trade center. it looks pretty. it sure wasn't worth the money.

Luckily, this line of thinking is in the minority as you can even see on this thread alone. Most people in this city understand there is a real dearth for public park space especially as more people are being added every year.

Once you get rid of open space and it becomes housing, it is much much harder to get it back for public use and the city becomes sterile without spaces for people to walk through, if possible at all. It is important to keep the small amount of public land we have now. There are still plenty of other lots that, if developed well, can be used for tall high rises.

corybraiterman wrote:
yes, that would be the entire purpose of it. now local politics being the shithole that it is, obviously it would go to fund a couple dozen new beach homes for some cronies, but you can't operate under the (generally correct) assumption that monies raised will not actually be used for their intended effect.

here's the thing - no one loses anything. we've never had the use of that entire area since they demolished the connecting bridges what... 12? 15? years ago. even then, most people never went up there because there was nothing to do. people would lose that giant ugly wall that's been slowly crumbling and occasionally getting tagged. it'd be a lost opportunity if you really look at it like that, but no one's taking a park away from you or anyone else - just the opportunity to make all the taxpayers spend more money on an excessive design because building and maintaining 5 bridges, about 15 blocks worth of fencing, multiple entrance and exit points including ADA compliant ones is wrapped up in "we want moar park!"

fk that. get a ground level park. get nutbag yvonne happy and make one or two of those blocks a municipal/residential parking lot. spend the money on the shit we need rather than excessive futility.

nice things are nice. parks are nice. so's the new world trade center. it looks pretty. it sure wasn't worth the money.

JPhurst wrote:
The public did not have use of the Embankment when the bridges were there 12-15 years ago. It was abandoned right of way.

With Green Villan's vision for the Bergen Arches, the Embankment has potential to be part of something even larger. It's worth fighting for.

corybraiterman wrote:
And if the price of tea in China changes, let me know. Until then I'll take your comparison of not building trains and not having an elevated park and wipe my ass with it

corybraiterman wrote:
yes, that would be the entire purpose of it. now local politics being the shithole that it is, obviously it would go to fund a couple dozen new beach homes for some cronies, but you can't operate under the (generally correct) assumption that monies raised will not actually be used for their intended effect.

here's the thing - no one loses anything. we've never had the use of that entire area since they demolished the connecting bridges what... 12? 15? years ago. even then, most people never went up there because there was nothing to do. people would lose that giant ugly wall that's been slowly crumbling and occasionally getting tagged. it'd be a lost opportunity if you really look at it like that, but no one's taking a park away from you or anyone else - just the opportunity to make all the taxpayers spend more money on an excessive design because building and maintaining 5 bridges, about 15 blocks worth of fencing, multiple entrance and exit points including ADA compliant ones is wrapped up in "we want moar park!"

fk that. get a ground level park. get nutbag yvonne happy and make one or two of those blocks a municipal/residential parking lot. spend the money on the shit we need rather than excessive futility.

nice things are nice. parks are nice. so's the new world trade center. it looks pretty. it sure wasn't worth the money.

corybraiterman wrote:
rebuilding the bridges and fences along with the upkeep on them is a large cost. razing it and making them ground level parks would be a lot less costly in the long run if you really want another park. personally, i'd just rather sell it to a developer at a real price who has to adhere to current or near-current height restrictions and invest the money into infrastructure upgrades that are a lot more needed but a lot less glamorous than a park.

like the sewers that break every. single. year. and are getting more and more overworked as the city grows. but hey, fck me for a little practicality, ammirite?