Yeah she was explaining

It be like that because thats how it is. But she explained it. No agglomeration benefits in the center, so no one builds, so no incentive to move there because no benefits, and the cycle continues. She talks about money and how its more expensive to move there. She even explains that in the end people are moving there because manhattan is getting expensive. Expense is an incentive that overcomes the agglomeration benefits lost in the center. So your summary, while factual, is an over-simplification of a complex economic and social ecosystem of New York that caused this "hole" in the skyline until now.

brilliantlysplendid Heard of zoning ? You bum

Maple Maps They should have some info of the zoning laws online (specific to the area). I think about all cities have that kind of thing.

The reason is economic

Lmao

Rofl, you win this comment section!

ba dum tssshh

And this comment says cheesy joke.

@@jayyt2969 good one

😂😂😂

ghostdasquarian Which is why NYC has such deep-rooted poverty: nobody pays near enough attention to transportation.

+John D The atrocious inefficient dilapidated MTA

Gus Putin Thank you, Mayor Laguardia -- that's why you get the crappy airport.

+John D I concur While the United STates spends trillions on all these wars. The infrastructure Systems is crumbling

@Mika Chance That makes sense of course, but it's still weird that, even with all those maps presumably available, no one noticed that correlation before him. Or failing that, asked some random city planner if it was technically possible to build in that area. It's not like skyscrapers are sentient beings that naturally avoid weak ground. Someone would have had to determine and decide that you can't build there, which should have been documented at some point.

@Mika Chance ok, that would explain it. Thank you for your detailed explanation ☺

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

One of New York City's earliest skyscrapers was built within the "gap zone." This is the 50 story One Madison Ave also known as the Metropolitan Life Tower built in 1909. Engineers knew about the bedrock issues as back as then and no other tower as tall as One Madison Ave would be build in the gap zone for 100 years. From 1909 to 2009 only shorter buildings were built in the gap zone.

You make a true statement, that for 100 years no tall buildings were built in the "gap zone". But what is your conclusion? If you are suggesting that it was because of bedrock issues, then I would ask, why was Word Trade Center complex built where it was, which is on very difficult landfill, rather than on bedrock? Why weren't the techniques used in the World Trade Center complex (and many other skyscrapers, such as those built in Chicago) used to build in the "gap zone"? A much more compelling argument can be made that the reason had little to do with geology and very much to do with finance, that tall building are built where developers can charge high rents, and there was nothing to justify high rents in the "gap zone."

@Mika Chance Hey thanks for the reply! Easily the most civil reply I've ever had on KZfaq. Could you link me to the paper? I'm curious if the 9K figure is adjusted for inflation.

This video tries really hard to disprove that bedrock was the key when it only reinforces it. Large buildings were built where they were economical to do so, that was on bedrock. As areas without bedrock flourished with lower cost buildings and rents it only reinforced why it was uneconomical to build skyscrapers there. Hell, one tower of the Brooklyn Bridge isn't on bedrock. You can build without bedrock but it the economics must support the expense of doing so.

This response shows how the video was completely unsuccessful at explaining anything. I "thought" I heard that it's NOT the bedrock.

P

Just curious, what do you call the layer above the bed rock? How hard is the bed rock compared to that layer?

Carter Paulson there's also no consideration that skyscrapers can now be built with lighter materials than those in the past. No comparison with other cities either.

my cities skylines city has more strict zoning laws than nyc

Most big cities do

Yep, Bloomberg covered the history of skyscrapers and zoning in another video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oq2ioqyjttPbqas.html

And which city would that be?

hi

How is this kid verified and I’m not

@@OriginalL. because DeSinc make content and you do not.

Night Shade ok that’s only one reason

@@OriginalL. How do you have 100 subscribers and no videos?

The zoning are there because of these aspects. The zoning are not there for no reason.

SimCity 5?

#

Lower land value and lots of poor people used to live in the tenement district, the people building skyscrapers wanted the opposite of that so they didnt build there

In the tenement district lived people with lower income, but as their income grew, they moved to better houses that were being built further north. For these new middle class citizens, companies created a shopping district further north which eventually turned into a skyscraper district

I mean she explains that the gap is where the bedrock was deep meaning only small buildings can go in the gap so really it does.

Carl Mueller who is your best jojo?

You must not understand economics. It's explained very clearly in the video. Turn up your volume and listen, it makes perfect sense.

I think they are missing the Leapfrogging effect of the city center www.bolepo.xyz/192/gravity-core-suppression-zone-and-leapfrogging/

No I think it was a good explanation

no real learning here, and no boobs, so this is a fail in my book.

Full agree

@@YuvalKarmi That story disproves itself by suggesting Broadway vs. off-Broadway theaters as an example. Though "Broadway" was originally defined by location within the Theater District, it was later modified to set a minimum size of 500 seats (thus smaller theaters in the Theater District are now considered "off-Broadway", or if below 100 seats even "off-off-Broadway"), as well as to add Lincoln Center which includes an appropriate theater for Broadway productions but is outside the Theater District. As the video suggests, if the economics are right issues such as bedrock, leapfrogging effect, etc. can be overcome.

+Diego Diaz do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I've never heard of zoning laws being set up to protect developers from potential expensive buildings. And, speaking of expensive, what about buildings like the seven buildings of the World Trade Center complex, all of which were built on landfill (bedrock is more than 20m (65ft) deep at that location). If bedrock was an issue why didn't Port Authority go with the easier site on the lower east side as originally planned? Can you point to a single skyscraper in NYC where bedrock being near the surface influenced either the design or location? The bedrock myth is a great example of correlation having nothing to do with causation. Thinking about it further, I challenge you to point to a single skyscraper anywhere on the planet where the depth of bedrock was a driving factor; I ask this because I just thought about all the tall buildings in Chicago, none of which are built on bedrock because it is too deep, but that didn't stop Chicago from having, for most of its history, the tallest building(s) in the world, or at least in the US.

John Early It’s as if you didn’t read his comment. Deeper bedrock requires more expense. It would play a bigger role with earlier skyscrapers than later thanks to technology. The funniest part of your comment is the “World Trade complex being built on landfill” when the bedrock is only 65ft deep. The fact is that the towers weren’t “built on landfill” and anyone who’s seen pics of the beginning of building or the excavation after they fell can see this. The fact is that their “basements” were multilevel (6 levels to be precise) shopping centers, parking areas, and train terminal.... all underground. Virtually everything that documents the building of the towers explains the “bathtub” that keeps the groundwater out of the basement, which was dug down to bedrock. The irony is that you’re demanding evidence, all while making demonstrably false claims about the Twin Towers; 2 skyscrapers that had massive documentation about how they were built (1965-72) and the excavation after they were destroyed... even showing some of the basement levels that survived. For as Sears Tower in Chicago, it has a 100’ foundation with 200 caissons that go 100’ deeper and set into bedrock. It was built at a time when the technology was available and cost effective to do; especially for a major city like Chicago (the largest in the Midwest). So again, you assert that the “biggest building in Chicago isn’t built on bedrock”, and you’re wrong yet again. Maybe you should get citations for your claims before asking others for theirs. It’d save yourself the embarrassment for being demonstrably wrong. Don’t bother replying if you aren’t citing sources. www.mindperk.com/one-minute-motivators/a-strong-foundation/ www.columbia.edu/cu/civileng/ling/wtc/

@@stlchucko oof hahaha

Cheer up, NYC will look more like Vancouver. Although no longer unique, much cooler.

@@ddebenedictis Will anyone even be able to afford it by then, though? _sigh_

Well it kinda will still have a dual peak. Especially with developments like Hudson Yards the midtown and in a sense downtown is growing higher than ever. Also the skyline is growing in DoBro and LIC in Brooklyn & Queens respectively. That will make the shape of skyline even more interesting. Especially if you watch from the East River.

I think it is a lost opportunity. It will look way better once the gap is filled!

XD

did you watch till the end of the video? Guess not.

@@flighted2513 New York really is building Skyscrapers In that gap.

Most cities have no bedrock and tons of skyscrapers.

Abcde There’s bedrock. It’s just a matter of how deep it is, which adds to building costs.

Construction Technology is better today. Also available land is at a premium in manhattan ,values have increased in the gap areas making it more financially viable to build there.

She sounds like she's, what, 12?

@@roelandrutgers Not even close; maybe you're imagining what you want

@@MrGriff305 What a strange thing to say!

@@roelandrutgers Agreed. Why would you come up with the number 12?? Your mind is strange.

Isn't that what Bill Clinton said 😂

Dan Bernstein if the idea that deeper bedrock is the issue preventing skyscrapers being built, then how do you explain Chicago, where bedrock is often over 100m deep? If bedrock was important why was the World Trade Center complex built on landfill, instead of on the originally proposed site on the east side where bedrock was quite close to the surface?

@@jpe1 I don't know about Chicago. I was responding to the ecomic argument

@@jpe1 It's a zoning/air rights issue in Manhattan. This video was a joke.

Lucas Fernandez so does Boston between the financial district and the back bay district

Yeah you're right, had never thought about it

But it's for different reasons

oh wow youre actually so right, i havent realized until now

Atlanta really don't have that many sky scrapper​ anyways

Penn Station was the opposite of a skyscraper

Just look at Madison Square Garden and think what use to be there

No way. That would be Capitalism. I thought Socialism was like, better, or something. Next you are going to tell me evolution had something to do with survival of the fittest and not "The Hidden Life of Trees" where it turns out that all trees are communists.

I thought it was box until I came back to comment

@@rerollyadice4224 cool

Mark Brand vox always adds politics into their vids. This account doesn’t

If being worse than Vox is even possible.

This is more like a high school kid's summer project of recreating VOX. almost no depth in the content or research. Compare this to Vox's hongkong real-estate topic, this is amateur hour indeed.

Exactly, against bobby moses

THANK YOU. This whole video could be just that single sentence

One of the most beautiful places on Earth. The definition of a metropolis.

Brooklyn Son .🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙🏙

When I think of a truly modern 21st century city what comes to my mind is the exact picture of the New York City. Its just Perfection.

@BOB.org New York isn't polluted at all. We have pretty clean air

well what pollution were you referring too, the garbage?

At 276k now 5 months later, guess she’s doing something right 🤔🤯💯

Yea, but of you don't build on a sturdy base, you run the risk of the building sinking. Look at the Millennium Tower in San Fransisco, they built the building using piles and now its sinking and leaning.

Yes it's a real shame what was done to the original. Though the argument can be made that the location and therefore land value created it's demise, not that I at all agree with it.

I still lament that it is gone. So beautiful.

PBS has a great American Experience episode on the original Penn. It's called "The Rise and Fall of Penn Station." Worth the watch.

Jay Emmx YES I'm watching that right now! 😞 Makes me cry!

One of the architectural elements from the building was brought to Kansas City and incorporated into a fountain (we are known as the city of fountains; they are everywhere). This particular one is just a few blocks from where I live. Every time I drive by it, I think about Penn Station and how beautiful it was.

Central Park is north of the two areas in question here. She is wrong in that the deeper the bedrock, the more expensive it is to construct tall buildings, not that it ever was impossible.

Get a map before you post

No it's not. NYC had trollies/streetcars back in the day. That's where the term "dodger" came from (i.e. Brooklyn Dodgers). Plus that building in the background is definitely not in SF.

NYC also had trolleys long before SFO was even thought of. They're no longer running but in some parts of Manhattan you could still see the tracks imbedded in the streets.

Apollo Fell is right. That is Market Street in SF. It is from a longer video that goes all the way down Market Street to the Embarcadero. The building in the background is the Ferry Building.

Yeah you can see the whole San Francisco clip here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_Building_(San_Francisco)

@@shibity The clip shows Market Street in San Francisco -- the tall tower in the distance is the Ferry Building, which survived the quake and fire which happened a few days after that film was shot. The Ferry Building is still there. The cars are not trolleys, but cable cars. After the fire the lines on Market were converted to electric trolleys; the cable lines were rebuilt on the streets with steep hills. New York also had cable cars in the 1890s. They were replaced by electric trolleys that used a conduit for picking up power, since Manhattan prohibited overhead wires, thus being non-trolley trolleys! (Washington, D. C., had a similar ordinance, but cars that crossed the District line also had trolley poles.) Overhead trolley wires were found in the other four boroughs, though.

Apparently you watched the video, but didn't listen to it then

Really what answer did they give? People? How did those people get there? Oh the buildings. So they are saying that the large buildings caused the large buildings. Nope never actually states that although that's the obvious conclusion and is so so close to almost right.

The gap is because the deeper the bedrock, the more expensive to build tall buildings. IOW- The video acts like the bedrock isn’t the “underlying” reason when it’s the prime reason. The only “myth” part is that the bedrock is too deep to build. That may have been true decades ago, but the only constraint now is the cost.

That's Queens, you doof! 😁

I don't think the 9/11 hijackers had trouble finding the twin towers

Darth Utah 66 they're downtown anyway.

This isn't Wendover Productions lol

...

CRIS WTF 34 But not better than Dubai or Hong Kong.

@BOB.org lol, have you even been to either Paris or London?

@BOB.org haha you're not wrong but they're still very cool cities.

BOB.org Their “citizens” meaning Muslims.

Well Paris is a shithole so yeah.

Ryan Lynch #1 stupidest complaint.

Serves less people, it's length is shorter, and it's not 24 hours, and it's less than 50 years old lol. No one mentioned the STC for a reason.

The main downside to the Mexico City subway is that it is in Mexico.

Joe Martin but it’s in Mexico

Simón, lo malo de allá son los pobres que se suben a vender sus productos inútiles que nadie quiere.

Michael Naness Take a look at its better

Dude, you couldn't have put it better, haha!

why is it shit tho?

I do not miss living there

How can it be shit and the best city? So its the best shittiest city ever

New York is a great center for Commerce, but if you think about it, a lot of these great cities of the last century relied heavily on trade via boat and train. Thats why harbors played such an important role. But as air travel and light, local industrialization become more common, those features might not be needed anymore. Plus, if sea levels continue to rise, access to the waterfront might be seen as more of a problem than a useful feature. The next "New York" might end up being a place thats landlocked, centrally located, and out of areas of seismic activity, dangerous weather, harsh climates, rising seas, and territorial disputes. It could be Omaha for all we know.

Trump did not sell the uranium to russia. you are a CNN brainwashed fool

it will be Flint, Michigan

lmao

I think you may be referring to the American Copper Buidings which are connected by a skybridge.

@@tjrtt I forgot I commented. XD I actually found that right away by just googling crooked towers. Thank you though.

...there is also the leaning skyscraper in San Francisco (Millennium Tower, 301 Mission Street) built on soft landfill. It always brought up talk about New York's bedrock and the location of skyscrapers there...

@@mdj.6179 everything Southeast of Kearny Street to the embarcadero is landfill

@@mdj.6179 that’s because the developer didn’t build to bedrock

It has nothing to do with central park