View Single Post
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 8:27 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by STERNyc View Post
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.....
Reply With Quote