As for the design criticisms, it's clear this person doesn't know much about actual design principles, despite criticizing the designers for it.
1) The escalators are almost certainly purposefully designed like this. This is common in many places, and I especially have seen this design used in many malls. Along with the fact that it guides people to product display areas, it also prevents dangerous traffic jams on the landings between escalators (it takes longer to get on an escalator than it does to get off, so in high traffic situations, you can end up with a lot of bunching at the top of an escalator, which can mean dangerous situations like this [1]).
2) Stairs are a common bottleneck since it takes longer to go up/down stairs than it does to walk on a level walkway. To prevent bottlenecking, the stairs should be wider than the walkways they connect to. This is the same principle you see when tollbooth plazas have more lanes than the highways they connect to.
3) The complaint about the gap in the railings again seems like an incredible nitpick. The author claims it is a 6 inch gap, but based on the photo, unless this person has massive hands, it looks more like a 3-4 inch gap, and I think it's a real stretch to call that "dangerous".
So you get the place to the point where it opens, and then you do a trickle of night work over the coming months as replacement parts come in and you can finally get everything perfect.
Hell, this happened to my parents' house remodel recently. They scratched a custom-order door in a way that wasn't repairable. Rather than leaving my parents without a door for a month, they left it as-is and then came back a month later with a new door (once it was ready) and installed it.
The software analogy doesn't hold, because security issues are often a consequence of buggy software, whereas shoddy finishes don't have much casual connection to the interior structure.
Also, software that "runs smoothly and presents a good used experience" can be just as prone to security problems, again because there's no necessary casual connection between the two.
You could argue that if the same team is responsible for everything, that the user experience, or finish, may be indicative of the internals - but it's common in both software and construction for different teams and even different companies to be responsible, and there can also be reasons to prioritize the areas differently and devote more attention and resources to one than the other.
I don't know how you came that conclusion, it seems irrationally combative. He is in good company.
> Klaus Jacob, a professor at Columbia University, has stated approval of the project stems from the "shortsightedness of decision-making" by its developers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Yards_(development)#Arc...
If the author wants to talk about how the glass buildings and their shape don't fit into the neighborhood, or that they lack a certain aesthetic, then fine. But he's not doing that. He is arguing against functional design principles that are not only commonplace across many similar developments, they are also in place for a reason.
That walkway does look ridiculously narrow, though. Seems to be just one person wide.
How so? Everyone who gets off the escalator had to get on at the same pace earlier.
Additionally, the people getting on the upwards escalator, at, for example, Floor 1 aren't the only people that will be getting on the upwards escalator on Floor 2. There will be other people from Floor 2 that want to go upwards as well.
The design should also account for unusual situations as well. Just because someone got on the first escalator with no problem doesn't mean they won't accidentally trip or fall when trying to get on the second escalator. And if that happens, you don't want people getting hurt just because a sudden traffic jam caused a huge bunch of people on the landing between the escalators.
I was curious so I did some additional reading. Based on promo material from escalator manufacturers [1], there is mention of safety issues regarding the amount of space on escalator landings, but there is also a lot of talk about optimizing traffic flow through product display areas. My guess is that the mall's decision to place the escalators the way they did is primarily driven by that, but as someone who used to work in a building where the exit to one escalator was directly next to the entrance to the next escalator, and personally witnessed huge traffic jams (and had the awful experience of being uncontrollably pushed towards such a jam by an escalator), I do appreciate the design for safety reasons as well.
1 (PDF WARNING): https://www.schindler.com/content/in/internet/en/mobility-so...
The fact that a lot of people visit it is just a factor of Manhattan being an ever-expanding series of tourist traps. Along with the 9/11 Memorial Shopping Mall the island is looking more and more like Mall of America. Madame Tussaud's is popular, yet it is generally reviled among residents and frequent visitors along with the knock-off Broadway characters at Times Square that will kick your teeth in if you take a selfie with them without paying (yet they remain a popular attraction). New Yorkers will tolerate crappiness if it is at least convenient and will tolerate opulence if it is at least nice to look at. Hudson Yards is neither.
If you have a dire case of FOMO then it might seem like a nice addition but it's just a shinier version of the malls that you see at every highway exit in the country. The city's venerable institutions have not changed and still quietly offer arts and music and there was certainly no shortage of world-class dining before Hudson Yards went up. Unless you've been pining for Thomas Keller's latest take on a thousand-dollar bowl of bong water[2], who needs it?
1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/14/arts/design/h...
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/dining/pete-wells-per-se-...
I think those words should not be ever strung together, and as they are it kinds of says way too many things about a culture that would use them as such.
Not to condemn all of New York, but the implications of that sentence is way beyond kitsch.
Maybe this is the way NY has always been: it changes, it hustles, it moves. It's never been about a quaint kind of perfection. Maybe it's always been a kind of a rugged, slightly aggressive New World place that maybe should offend the senses of anyone expecting a more refined serenity?
So maybe that's just NYC.
I'm sure a guy like Trump and his tastes is not some random outlier ...
I was disgusted the last time I went there. I was there with someone who lost a family member in 9/11. They were clearly still emotionally burdened by their loss, even in 2017. Yet just a few feet away people were taking smiling selfies next to a literal memorial! I've been to many public memorials, and they are somber places. The 9/11 memorial feels like an almost fitting monument to crass 21st century capitalism.
So what's the problem with that? If you look to malls as a source of transcendence, you're bound to be disappointed.
> who needs it?
If nobody needed it, it would be a ghost town. Your objection is not that it's not needed, it's that you don't like it.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19644880
The real good design is the rail yard person who left space for pilings to put something above in the 70s. (Some NYT article led with this fact.)
Though it certainly discusses some questionable gerrymandering of the targeted economic area.
> All EB-5 investors must invest in a new commercial enterprise, which is a commercial enterprise:
> Established after Nov. 29, 1990, or
> Established on or before Nov. 29, 1990, that is:
> 1. Purchased and the existing business is restructured or reorganized in such a way that a new commercial enterprise results, or
> 2. Expanded through the investment so that at least a 40-percent increase in the net worth or number of employees occurs
The closest thing is how it specifies amounts - $1m in general, or $500,000 in rural or high unemployment areas. Which is closer, but still doesn't require low-income housing...
0: https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-worker...
This seems independent of whether or not it's a popular attraction.
I have a theory that writers in the media are disposed towards complaining, or rewarded for it with readers. It's also easier and frequently more fun to be negative than positive. So on almost any topic (Facebook, Hudson Yards, Tesla, whatever) there's a tendency to needlessly accentuate the negative.
Meanwhile, the writer has no idea what he (or she?) would've done with Hudson Yards, given the same opportunity and budget. Neither do I, for that matter.
Given that what they're saying is the plain, visible truth, what's the objection?
Also labor propaganda.
Unions can be dysfunctional, resisting new tech, but construction is a pretty simple business.
1) Since opening, the mall has added a ton of indoor seating. The place is so popular that sometimes people still sit on the floor. This is success not sour grapes.
2) The escalators seem purposefully designed to make you wander around the mall. If you want vertical speed, there are many elevators, which the author neglected to mention.
The place is very popular. I’m certainly happy to have world class dining, shops and arts instead of a rail yard.
The article is basically a hatchet job.