[STERNyc]

I’m nostalgic for a number of late modernist building’s that are undergoing refacings in New York City. While they are not great works of architecture, each were thoughtful works, employing the architecture of the day. The Viacom and Verizon Building both near Times Square create strong images, I think of the city then and myself respectively, they still create a strong image today as I am reminded of how not even ten years ago Times Square was considered the Wild West. These buildings are quintessential 1960’s New York, they were somewhat tenacious for being built on the edge of a business district; they were frontiers and had a certain dynamism to them. I am also saddened by the loss of 2 Columbus Circle. Countless movies and TV shows from the 1960's era will show this beautifully tacky building as an integral part of the cityscape and although failed as a museum, its architecture was quintessential New York. The worst part is that I would have no problem if these buildings were going to be replaced for some dramatic statement, such is the name of progress, but my problem is that these buildings are being replaced for something wholly forgettable. I feel much of New York, at least Manhattan, is becoming whitewashed and monotonous, the refacings verify this, the faceless replacements reaffirm a current misdirection in idealism.


Verizon Building:

http://www.theslatinreport.com/content/pictures/newverizon.jpg

Its oh, so forgettable replacement:

http://www.theslatinreport.com/content/pictures/1095.jpg

The needless destruction of a perfectly fine building:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/348230778_b66281c6a7.jpg

2 Columbus Circle, quintessential 1960s NYC:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/2columbus/columbus_circle_2001.jpg

The faceless, unnecessary, and lastly ugly replacement:

http://www.curbed.com/archives/2005_02_2columbuscircle.jpg

More needless destruction:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/1d/180px-2ColumbusConstruction.jpg

The next building rumored to have a needlessly, white-washed fate:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/1515broadway/images/viacom_milford.jpg

[Tex17]

I agree, I prefer the original facings on Verizon and 2 Columbus Circle, but I think Astor could actually look better with a newer skin.

[-GR2NY-]

the verizon building is only getting a new facade, right?

I like the white lines better myself, its part of avenue of the americas right?

[Jonovision]

It's a real shame for all these buildings. Even if they aren't gems, they're still placemarkers that help illustrate the story of New York. If this happens too much it will appear as if the city was built within a decade instead of over the last few centuries.

[hereinvannuys]

This whole sheet of glass upgrade is a fad which will blow through faster than a speeding bullet.

[marcus]

I liked the verison building a lot. Now it's glass will probly just look like whats being built next to it (bank of america). It's sad that all of these buildings are being changed.

[vid]

They need a cleaning but a whole makeover? No.

[texcolo]

[QUOTE=STERNyc;2611711]

Verizon Building:

http://www.theslatinreport.com/content/pictures/newverizon.jpg

[QUOTE]


That's a shame. The reason the white columns are thicker at the bottom is a historical reflection of NYC architecture. The older and shorter buildings are faced with stone and brick facades and the newer and taller buildings are glass. Pelli got kudos for this trick with his World Financial Center.

[Austinlee]

Oh God; 2 Columbus Circle has been in need of a facelift since the day it was created!! That's just my opinion though. To each his own.

[skymetalscraper]

The next building rumored to have a needlessly, white-washed fate:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/1515broadway/images/viacom_milford.jpg

after verizon they want to waste even ona astor plaza ??? omg.. silly... :(

[CGII]

Astor is getting refaced? What the hell? All of this is senseless, but while I don't terribly mind Verizon or Astor, the Lollipop is just getting totally raped. What a total shame.

Lamentably it's nothing new. Remember how back in the 60's and 70's developers would cover up vintage, Beaux Arts buildings with screening to appear streamlined, many of those buildings are being restored today. I hope in the decades to come the same is done for Lollipop.

They just better keep their paws off the AT&T Long Lines.

[LostInTheZone]

New York fundamentally did not accept the whole premise of historical preservation. It's important to understand this to understand it as a city. Change and progress are ingrained into the soul of the place.

If you want to see a Victorian brownstone refinished inside into a modernist white-walled loft, go to New York. To find a simliar mansion with original woodwork and tacky Victorian animal shaped lighting fixtures, try Philly or San Francisco.

[tyler82]

If you want to see a Victorian brownstone refinished inside into a modernist white-walled loft, go to New York. To find a simliar mansion with original woodwork and tacky Victorian animal shaped lighting fixtures, try Philly or San Francisco.


Tacky? So everything outside of NY is tacky, but anything done within city limits is "modernist" and acceptable? There are plenty of tacky ugly buildings and architecture right in NY. By far not the most beautiful or well thought out city...

[LostInTheZone]

^I tried to make that post as balanced and neutral as I could. I must have succeeded, because I'm actually actually not fond of that aspect of New York, and prefer tacky anarchonisms- like the Republic Steel cabinets in my kitchen or the 1950s mimosa pattern wallpaper in my bathroom. Check out the front reception room of the Parker Guest House on Church St, and you'll see exactly what I was picturing when I said that.

Reread what I said without looking for offense.

[tyler82]

My main complaint with your argument was that you referred to the buildings of preserved victorians of cities like SF as a whole as "tacky" when the definition of tacky is "showing poor taste or quality." And I think we can all agree that the quality of substance, whether it be ornamentation, structure, and so on, is, by this definition, far more "tacky" today than it was in the Victorian era which you knock.
However, the subjectivity of "taste" has developed, or rather, transformed, throughout generations, but I think it is hard to find somebody with admirable credentials in the field of history and architecture that would tell you that, by its definition, architecture design and structures of the Victorian era was at all "tacky."
And is it not the experts such as these who have always dictated what "taste" and "quality" is and always has been?

[sfcity1]

New York fundamentally did not accept the whole premise of historical preservation. It's important to understand this to understand it as a city. Change and progress are ingrained into the soul of the place.

If you want to see a Victorian brownstone refinished inside into a modernist white-walled loft, go to New York. To find a simliar mansion with original woodwork and tacky Victorian animal shaped lighting fixtures, try Philly or San Francisco.

Hmm, I lived in both NYC and SF. SF strangely seems to have more art deco percentage wise than NYC (e.g. alot in pacific heights, lots in the finanicial area, and a good amount in the Marina which also has tropical like buildings.)

Yes S.F. has victorian buildings with preserved old fashioned elevators, etc., but with all the modern kitchen appliances, bathrooms, security, etc. NYC does not have these types of victorians, but they do have many classical brownstowns and tenement walkups. S.F. does not really have these.

Both cities are getting a large number of modern buildings, but in S.F. there are entire neighborhoods of modern buildings being built with neighborhood structure, while in NYC the new buildings appear scattered around without any citywide plans.

[Eigenwelt]

The Verizon Building went from whatever to whatever. 2 Columbus Circle went from ugly to ugly. Basically neither building really changed it's look, just updated it.

Like a librarian who looked like a librarian 40 years ago and looks like one today, even though she's wearing period appropriate clothing.

Anyway, if there is any building in NYC that is hurting for a new look, it is this monstrosity.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k287/Eigenwelt/Misc/Verizon.jpg

For it's location it falls far short of the spendor required.

[vid]

"For it's location it falls far short of the spendor required."

Really? It's by far the best thing in that picture!

[Independence]

Anyway, if there is any building in NYC that is hurting for a new look, it is this monstrosity.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k287/Eigenwelt/Misc/Verizon.jpg

For it's location it falls far short of the spendor required.

Peace to that. :yuck:

[olga]

Sad indeed. I like that Verizon building (the original version) very much.

[Upward]

It's a real shame for all these buildings. Even if they aren't gems, they're still placemarkers that help illustrate the story of New York. If this happens too much it will appear as if the city was built within a decade instead of over the last few centuries.

I agree. Every time I've gone to New York, the city has seemed newer than the time before. That's disturbing...

[LostInTheZone]

http://www.parkerguesthouse.com/photogallery/frontdesk.jpg?photo=IM000146.JPG','640','480');

see along the ceiling line? Carved wooden lion heads holding orange light bulbs in their teeth. Definitely tacky, but definitely interesting. I'm generally very big on anything that's old, because things develop character as they get old, even if they're not the best, most refined examples of design. I would never remove something like that if I bought this building, even if I hated it. I hate how people "automatically" rennovate things like kitchen and bathroom fixtures that are fine, in the interest of an "update" that's just going to look "dated" in the very near future anyway. If something's going to look dated, it might as well be dated to the period it was built. "Dated" only lasts 20 years or so before it's "vintage" and before you know it it's "antique". The problem with relying on novelty is that it wears off very quickly, and then you're forced to just rennovate again.

[X-fib]

Whats worse than facelifting mediorce 1960s buildings is when one of particular archetectual quality is demolished in favor a larger, bland, and blend into the neighborhood, replacement. This was the fate of the U.S. Gypsum building on Wacker Drive in Chicago. To me, one the best designs of its day. Turned at a 45 dergee angle so small plazas were created at each corner its inovative narrow colums and contrasting window treatment immediately caught your attention. Sorry I don't have a pic to post, or of its successor, or you would see what I mean. Its a pitty this is being done in NYC. There is too much of the "I don't like it in today's perspective so lets change it" attitude out there! :)

[pico44]

Ummmm, I hate to break it to everyone but the Sixth Ave Verizon building is just a horribly ugly building with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Putting on a new skin will improve this building 1 hundred-fold.

[CGII]

The Verizon Building went from whatever to whatever. 2 Columbus Circle went from ugly to ugly. Basically neither building really changed it's look, just updated it.

Like a librarian who looked like a librarian 40 years ago and looks like one today, even though she's wearing period appropriate clothing.

Anyway, if there is any building in NYC that is hurting for a new look, it is this monstrosity.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k287/Eigenwelt/Misc/Verizon.jpg

For it's location it falls far short of the spendor required.

The reason it's so horrifically ugly is that it holds thousands of telephone boards, like the AT&T Long Lines building, and they need to be contained in a safe, controlled climate.

[LostInTheZone]

Ummmm, I hate to break it to everyone but the Sixth Ave Verizon building is just a horribly ugly building with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Putting on a new skin will improve this building 1 hundred-fold.

and we're saying, people will be saying the same thing about the new skin in a few decades. You're trading one mediocre design for another, and at least the old version was distinctive. The very last thing New York needs is more midrise glass boxes.

[pico44]

and we're saying, people will be saying the same thing about the new skin in a few decades. You're trading one mediocre design for another, and at least the old version was distinctive. The very last thing New York needs is more midrise glass boxes.

I'm not saying a new glass skin is great, I'm just saying it's much much much better than what is there right now. Hopefullly in twenty years when it starts looking crummy again, it can be torn down.

[JManc]

insulting to the original architect. it's like altering a painting or a sculpture after the fact and without the blessing of its creator.

[Independence]

The reason it's so horrifically ugly is that it holds thousands of telephone boards, like the AT&T Long Lines building, and they need to be contained in a safe, controlled climate.

Yeah, that is correct.

So if you tear down this one, phone connections all over NYC would suffer a complete breakdown I guess... Let's hope this will never happen.
____

It should be no problem to construct a new facade around the existing structure and this eyesore would be history.

[Eigenwelt]

The reason it's so horrifically ugly is that it holds thousands of telephone boards, like the AT&T Long Lines building, and they need to be contained in a safe, controlled climate.

Sorry, can't buy that argument. The function of the building is not why it looks like shit, the design is. Since the architect did not have to deal with as many occupant requirements as other towers it is even more aggregious that the end result failed to be a work of art. Towers like this are made to be architectural sculpture.

I like the Long Lines. Alot. I've always been fascinated with that building. Infact I once did a sculpture based off of it that nearly got me arrested while sketching it circa 1999.

I don't want to see this building removed, I would just like to see it made more visually interesting. I think it clashes with both the Brooklyn Bridge and the Co-op towers behind it.

[soleri]

The appeal of a lot of modernist architecture escape me, so I'm a little surprised how a recladding of some high-rise really generates so much controversy. Still, it does seem that everything eventually comes around again. A lot of midcentury modern archtitecture is now the stuff of preservationist passions. I grew up with the stuff and never thought anything about it until recently. 50s architecture now strikes me as beautiful, evocative and disciplined. The buildings tend to be quite well-proportioned and sited. Then in the 60s, the neo-classicism movement surfaced. Led by Edward Durrell Stone, among others. The Huntington Hartford building, like the Kennedy Center, just seems like kitsch.

But an artifact is an artifact, and I'd just as soon keep the original than gussy it up in something we'll probably all hate in a few years. Is the Verizon Building such an artifact? I don't see it but others do. NYC, however, has so much of this stuff that I wonder whether this particular one is worth worrying about. I'm more concerned about those buildings that we could never duplicate for reasons of cost and now-absent construction skills. Hotels Drake and Pennsylsvania may not be stunningly original or unique, but they define a city much better than glass boxes. Lose enough of them, and the city weakens dramatically.

[vid]

I'm a little surprised how a recladding of some high-rise really generates so much controversy.

That's a shame. The reason the white columns are thicker at the bottom is a historical reflection of NYC architecture. The older and shorter buildings are faced with stone and brick facades and the newer and taller buildings are glass. Pelli got kudos for this trick with his World Financial Center.

That is why. The building IS architecturally significant because of that. It is also original, the glass box they are replacing it with is not. It's just a glass box. It represents nothing whatsoever.

[STERNyc]

The Verizon Building went from whatever to whatever. 2 Columbus Circle went from ugly to ugly. Basically neither building really changed it's look, just updated it.

I have a problem with this argument, probably because I'm pursuing degrees in both Real Estate Development and Architecture; I see things with a different eye. I am inherently a modernist so I have problems with wastefulness and I think refacing a building that already has a distinctive, albeit old face is wasteful. I would have no problem if they replaced these somewhat mediocre buildings in order to create something beautiful, along the lines of the AXA renovation in Paris, the entire process would then become meaningful. But to replace an old building with a certain amount of character for a new face devoid of any beauty or character is not only wasteful but it wrong. And if infact these buildings are only going from whatever to whatever, why spend $150 million (the cost of the Verizon Renovation) to solidify mediocrity, its all very wasteful.

[olga]

^well spoken

[Kroy Wen]

I have a problem with this argument, probably because I'm pursuing degrees in both Real Estate Development and Architecture; I see things with a different eye. I am inherently a modernist so I have problems with wastefulness and I think refacing a building that already has a distinctive, albeit old face is wasteful. I would have no problem if they replaced these somewhat mediocre buildings in order to create something beautiful, along the lines of the AXA renovation in Paris, the entire process would then become meaningful. But to replace an old building with a certain amount of character for a new face devoid of any beauty or character is not only wasteful but it wrong. And if infact these buildings are only going from whatever to whatever, why spend $150 million (the cost of the Verizon Renovation) to solidify mediocrity, its all very wasteful.

The reasons for the reclad are actually quite the opposite. The new glass facade is highly energy-efficient and much lower maintence than that existing. The building, with Verizon's 80% exit and sale to Equity, was going to be wholesale updated anyway with an entirely new HVAC system and elevator plan featuring a sky lobby and 'green' attributes including the electrical and water systems. So the choice was- keep the original, inefficient, unloved facade (having to replace much of it even so) or chart an entirely new course.....

[blake5377]

How about that building downtown that has no Windows in Tribeca... Whats it called? AT&T building or something... scary!

[Kroy Wen]

^It's a long lines building, there are several.
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SOH/Pict0032a.jpg

[blake5377]

Yah!! What is that?!?!

[BnaBreaker]

:( Astor Plaza is one of my favorite buildings in NYC.

[manfire]

after verizon they want to waste even ona astor plaza ??? omg.. silly... :(

I've honestly never been wild about One Astor Plaza but somehow I have a feeling that whatever they do to "fix" it will be much worse.

[Trojan in NYC]

The new facade is just another boring glass box and the old one isnt anything special either. So if the new one is more energy efficient i'm fine with the replacement. they arent going to do this to buildings like the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building so i don't see the big deal.

[Jularc]

New York fundamentally did not accept the whole premise of historical preservation. It's important to understand this to understand it as a city. Change and progress are ingrained into the soul of the place.

If you want to see a Victorian brownstone refinished inside into a modernist white-walled loft, go to New York. To find a simliar mansion with original woodwork and tacky Victorian animal shaped lighting fixtures, try Philly or San Francisco.

I am confuse by what you said. Have you ever been to all these homes in each city to make a comparison of what they have done in the inside of every brownstone or 'victorian home'?

Maybe I will give you some examples. Here is a website for some of the best historic victorian style homes in NYC... Plenty to look in the inside of these homes aswell...

A Map:

http://www.marykayg.com/images/map_large2r.gif

Look for the homes on sale:

http://www.marykayg.com/