As someone who has lived on 57th street for most of their life, it's not all roses. 57th street used to be a vibrant street full of a variety of businesses. Back in the 70s & 80s when the 40s and 50s of Manhattan were filled with street prostitution (on the west side) and brothels (on the east side, and they're still there), 57th street used to be where you started to get respectable looking buildings and shops to fill them.

Now from end to end across Manhattan, most of 57th Street is becoming vacant in preparation for construction. The process is likely to take 20 or 30 years to complete, similar to what happened on 10th Avenue. There is more money to be made by letting buildings sit empty for years. 250 West 55th, at the cross street of 55th & 8th avenue, was an empty corner lot for 28 years while they waited for the rest of the buildings on the block to become vacant for teardown.

Some areas are especially derelict -- between 5th and 6th Avenue in particular. It's an absolute eyesore and source of daily construction noise and will likely be so for the rest of my natural life.

This has ruined my neighborhood.

If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not.

As for "people should be free to build things", we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case. Not unrestrained by zoning laws and concern for the community.

> we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case.

That was an enormous mistake. It's the source of our housing shortage in high-demand areas and it's probably costing us literally trillions of dollars. [0]

> If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not.

This is what you believe, not what I believe. In fact, I think people should be free to build buildings I think are ugly.

[0] https://ggwash.org/view/42946/zoning-the-hidden-trillion-dol...

Interesting take, considering the article we are talking about discusses how billionaires are hiding assets overseas (well, from overseas relative to us) in our housing. Don't you think that's driving up pricing.

Anyway, I disagree with your article's point of view. I don't think letting more people live in San Jose or NYC would unlock huge 10% improvements to GDP, and, even if it were, there's a value to being able to live in single family homes. If WFH is here to stay, then my suspicion is that NYC is going to continue suffering from its 2020 housing glut.

> there's a value to being able to live in single family homes

Of course that's true. Again, my view is that people should be free to build whatever they want. Single-family zoning makes the alternatives illegal, not the other way around! Proponents of single-family zoning get a lot of mileage out of the implication that urbanists want to impose their way of living on everybody else, but the opposite is quite plainly the case. Only one side in this debate wants to encode their preferences in law.

While I can't say about these specific buildings, I do agree that complaining about skyscrapers in New York seems weird. In general given enough time every eyesore becomes an iconic part of the city.

Well you are free to do things but not at the cost of pollutions.

Attempts to equate 1) zoning that prevents buildings one doesn't like; and 2) zoning that prevents sources of pollution is a fairly tired false equivocation.