HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2007, 12:27 PM
Upward's Avatar
Upward Upward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2007, 4:26 PM
LostInTheZone's Avatar
LostInTheZone LostInTheZone is offline
Do you like... Huey Lewis
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Phila.
Posts: 3,062


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.
__________________
"I'm exceedingly pro-growth, but I have to respectfully dissagree. Growth is not the holy grail, smart growth is. Uncontrolled, careless growth which ends up creating problems in the long run is called cancer." -Eigenwelt

Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

Last edited by LostInTheZone; Feb 7, 2007 at 6:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2007, 5:28 PM
X-fib X-fib is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NE Wisconsin
Posts: 220
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 12:17 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 3:53 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwelt View Post
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.



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.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 4:46 PM
LostInTheZone's Avatar
LostInTheZone LostInTheZone is offline
Do you like... Huey Lewis
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Phila.
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
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.
__________________
"I'm exceedingly pro-growth, but I have to respectfully dissagree. Growth is not the holy grail, smart growth is. Uncontrolled, careless growth which ends up creating problems in the long run is called cancer." -Eigenwelt

Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 7:03 PM
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInTheZone View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 8:09 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,532
insulting to the original architect. it's like altering a painting or a sculpture after the fact and without the blessing of its creator.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2007, 10:56 PM
Independence's Avatar
Independence Independence is offline
let's work together
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Straight up north
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
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.
__________________
SOON TO BECOME AN ACTUAL SIGNATURE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2007, 2:18 AM
Eigenwelt's Avatar
Eigenwelt Eigenwelt is offline
OG from the L.B.C.
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
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.
__________________
Jonesing for a real cheesesteak.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 12:58 AM
soleri soleri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,237
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 3:13 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by soleri View Post
I'm a little surprised how a recladding of some high-rise really generates so much controversy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texcolo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 4:09 AM
STERNyc's Avatar
STERNyc STERNyc is offline
Landmark Restored
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwelt View Post
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.
__________________
Somewhere between Child's clarity and Libeskind's dazzle lies the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 8:03 AM
olga's Avatar
olga olga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Malmo Sweden
Posts: 3,386
^well spoken
__________________
My flickr!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 8:27 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
Quote:
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
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2007, 11:55 PM
blake5377 blake5377 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 117
How about that building downtown that has no Windows in Tribeca... Whats it called? AT&T building or something... scary!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2007, 2:22 AM
Kroy Wen Kroy Wen is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 347
^It's a long lines building, there are several.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2007, 12:04 AM
blake5377 blake5377 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 117
Yah!! What is that?!?!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2007, 12:12 AM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 16,824
Astor Plaza is one of my favorite buildings in NYC.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2007, 10:35 PM
manfire's Avatar
manfire manfire is offline
Living in the Quasi-City
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside the Beltway
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by skymetalscraper View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.