1 WHO CARES WHAT A BUILDING
LOOKS LIKE IN THE DAMN SKYLINE? that's such a postmodern way of thinking about architecture.
2 what's wrong with grey? grey is a beautiful color and helps to soften the visual NOISE of midtown.
3 'dull finish deprives the facades of an enlivening play of light and shadow'? again, the focus seems to be TOO much on what it LOOKS LIKE. whereas the true test of architecture comes when you walk into a building.
4 aesthetically, i love this building because it's so simple from afar, yet up close it reveals itself to be wonderfully intricate, honest, and expressive. and this play of light and shadow that the NYT's critic says is lacking perhaps should pay a visit INSIDE the building where the play of light shadow are actually important.
... god, it's no wonder why so many people prefer buildings like empire state or chrysler and so on over WONDERFUL works of architecture like
this or seagram and so on; they see architecture only from the standpoint of does it look
good in the skyline. but isn't the fundamental goal of architecture to create beautiful SPACE, not tall shapes that look pretty? buildings are machines for inhabiting, and attention should be given solely to creating a great space for inhabiting and not creating something that
looks good.
i thought this pomo way of thinking was past us?
i don't know that critic, but he sounds like someone who would be appalled by exposed concrete.