Quote:
Originally Posted by artspook
"God almighty, . . how awful every other building on that block is." . .
(quote from above) . . such vulgar fury over such un-hideous buildings . .
just to the west of 220 CPS, a gorgeous building . .
of double-heighted art studio spaces . . with exquisite facade treatment . .
to the East,. the very cool mid-century modern sweeping curve at 7th Ave . .
is a sublime grand urban gesture . .
the aforementioned forefront apartment tower of peach brick . .
(pictured just above) . . (I think it looks more earthy yellow-ochre in real life) . .
has great curvy deco storefronts along Broadway (street-level) . .
the balconies give great texture . . it has a subtle crown "reveal" hat . .
deco interiors . . and, while I wouldn't landmark it, . .
it's got satisfactory color, texture, style, & interiors . . not so bad . .
there are a gazillion bad buildings in this town . .
but this block is pretty nice . .
Why are people so quick to bulldoze and reclad ? . .
For some reason, they're DIS-eased . .
by this city's amazingly diverse historical narrative . .
instead of thoroughly enjoying its complete, richly-patinated
architectural experience . .
|
No, that's all wrong.
"Architectural diversity" is relevant only if it serves some purpose, aesthetically, culturally, historically, etc. This building fails to satisfy any such charge.
It's unapologetically atrocious. Taste is subjective, but I'm sure we could all agree that some buildings are more visually pleasing than others. The Chrysler building, for example, is undoubtedly a better example of artistic creativity and visual pleasure than say, 5 Bryant Park: a poorly proportioned, portly, cheaply clad turd, which, as if that weren't enough, is finished with a lazy, cynical blank wall extending the entire height of that cancerous tumor of a tower. Or, if you'd like an even more obvious example, compare Penn Station to GCT. Can you, with any sincerity, claim that Penn Station isn't a national disgrace that needs to be erased from the history books? Can you make a case that Penn deserves preservation in the same way GCT does?
Furthermore, New York is overflowing with buildings of similarly abhorrent taste and quality. It's not as if tearing that disaster down would prevent tourists and design enthusiasts alike from being able to take in, first hand, the bargain basement sensibilities of every hack architect who aped these god awful designs. Go to any neighborhood,
any neighborhood, and you'll have no difficultly in finding similar buildings. And if that is the case to be made (a weak case indeed), then why not make the same case for preserving run down slum neighborhoods? Even if the houses meet some minimum requirement for habitability, you cannot claim that anyone takes pleasure in looking at them.
And what better way to highlight the absurdity of the NIMBY / preservation crowd than noting their argument that buildings with balconies need to be saved. Why can't developers, following the desires of buyers, make that decision? And why do the needs of a few residents, assuming that they actually want balconies (an unsafe assumption) matter to a committee designed to preserve buildings on historical, cultural or aesthetic merits? I wasn't aware that social needs were a part of their criteria.
Sorry, it's a disgrace, and it's occupying one of the most important pieces of real estate in the world. The preservation committee embarrasses themselves, and fails at their charge, by protecting such excrement when there are tens of thousands of more worthy buildings all over the city in need of this kind of attention.
Prev
Nice update from Columbus Circle! 
Linear Mode
