New York sacrificing its heritage and unique flair - an affront to its grand historical cityscape? Dumb York?

[TimothyR]

Originally Posted by erbse

C'mon, at that location and height, you can sell golden crap to people.

No you can't. You don't know New Yorkers.

I agree with you on the theme of this thread and I love those wonderful architectural gems, but you are going too far. "Dumb York"?

[ThatOneGuy]

I love how non-modernists call modernism stupid and tasteless, yet have the nerve to bash entire cities and people for not agreeing with their preferred architectural styles.

[william of waco]

If 432 were built in Lower Manhattan, among many true masterpieces, it would hardly get a second glance. Just another very tall building thrown up for the convenience of office space. I lived in New York long enough to know that the average native is almost never excited by such strict functionality. In a city that is famous for its skyscrapers each new effort should attempt to outdo the previous best, and 432 doesn't even come close. Once the novelty passes it will become just another building.

[ThatOneGuy]

Just like the old WTC...

[cameronpaul]

Originally Posted by Ludi

Omg, cant believe that they take down this building for new building.

In Europe unimaginably to deal with buildings like that so ....

This photo shows just how important it is to preserve the old 'scrapers of New York, buildings that were unique to the U.S. and serve as a relief to the overall blandness of the modernist style, which of course, can be found in any city on earth. I'm not against all modern buildings, some of course are very fine, but the majority, unfortunately, are either banal and boring steel and glass strutures or totally freakish and inhuman - I'm reminded of the great Alistar Cook's statement on modern abberations: "Freak art masquerading as originality" - brilliant!!

[socrates#1fan]

People don't visit New York to see these buildings. They visit New York to see the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, the Statue of Liberty, etc, etc.

No one is going to want to visit NYC if more and more of it is just concrete blocks.

Such arrogance to destroy the very buildings that gave you any pride to begin with.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Moot argument.

If they hadn't destroyed anything that has ever been built on Manhattan Island, almost all NY icons such as the Empire State Building, Rockfeller Center, original WTC etc. would have never been built, since they took over previous existing buildings.

For new things come to existence, buildings that will be celebrated in 50 years or so, old stuff needs to see the wrecking ball.

It is a NORMAL, HEALTHY and NATURAL cycle by which cities renovate their building stock by demolishing what is old and replacing by newer construction.

Agreed..

But..

To replace ornate buildings like these with cold modernist cubes disliked by most people is not healthy or natural. It is backward and destructive.

Replace these buildings with a soaring building of art-deco covered in magnificent limestone carvings and I guarantee you, you'll lose half of the opposition to the project.

So long as human beings have eyes and a soul they will never like these buildings.

[ThatOneGuy]

I remember my class going on a trip to New York and all of them were taking pictures of, and admiring the Seagram Building.
Then one of my classmates gawked at that building with the MiMA sign on top, so...

[erbse]

Originally Posted by TimothyR

No you can't. You don't know New Yorkers.

I agree with you on the theme of this thread and I love those wonderful architectural gems, but you are going too far. "Dumb York"?

I know some New Yorkers. But predominantly it's not New Yorkers buying these detached apartments, but mostly Saudis, oligarchs and the likes who don't even spend a whole month a year there. It's just a safe bet for investment to make sure the wealthiest aren't losing all their capital during the crisis times.

And still, people won't care much for the (exterior) architecture at this location - interiors, the views and again location, location, location is what sets the prices there. And then developments like 432 Park are the result of this habit.

Dumb York is of course thought provoking and there's the question mark for a reason. But NYC finally needs to wake up, it keeps going with that behavior wherever you look (historical Penn Hotel being only one of the more prominent recent examples).

[Sweet Zombie Jesus]

Rather liking the 'aesthetic tradition' vs. 'freedom of design' debate going on.

Erbse, I wonder if you've ever looked into Christopher Alexander? A man who not only stands firmly behind the view that aesthetic experience in architecture is not just a 'point of view' but something which is universal in all human beings, but has also spent most of his working life researching and trying to understand the various elements that make up universally positive urban spaces. He's even built a few buildings, including a whole college campus in Japan. Very interesting stuff.

On topic with the thread... 432 Park Tower? That's a tragically awful looking thing.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

I remember my class going on a trip to New York and all of them were taking pictures of, and admiring the Seagram Building.
Then one of my classmates gawked at that building with the MiMA sign on top, so...

The sheer size of the structure is what grabs the attention of many (WTC for example was famous for its size, not its aesthetics).

I would not build structures based on a "coolness factor", coolness goes just as quickly as it came.

[RegentHouse]

You are a saint, erbse. Regardless, NYC lost so much of its heritage years ago because Robert Moses attempted to turn it into a souless shell and Jane Jacobs wanted it to be a hunky dory hippie hellhole.

This is supposed to be the financial capital of the world! The new projects are either boring (432) or half-assed (WTC and Hudson Yards), meanwhile the best proposals all became stale bread.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

The sheer size of the structure is what grabs the attention of many (WTC for example was famous for its size, not its aesthetics).

I would not build structures based on a "coolness factor", coolness goes just as quickly as it came.

Idk, there were taller, larger buildings around it that not many people looked at. Surprisingly, one of my classmates actually knew who Mies Van Der Rohe was.

The WTC was modernism mixed with gothic. Everywhere, you could see gothic details, like at the base, the top, the mech. vents, the details under the overhangs of the old 4-6WTC, the setbacks of the 3WTC entrance and its rounded corners, giving an art-deco feel. The soaring vertical lines...
It also had a perfect location, balancing the skyline, adding a focal point, with the Woolworth in between them from certain angles. That complex was loaded with architectural details, including modern details, which are actually loved by many.

The WTC was much more than just size. Anybody with a knowledge or appreciation of architecture will know that.

[erbse]

From up close, the old WTC indeed featured some interesting ArtDeco-like details.
The problem with them was their bulky, grey and bland appearance from some distance. Regardless of its focus qualities. Most of the time you'd see them from a distance. Same goes for 432 Park.

That's what differentiates good from bad architecture: From any angle it's working well, can be appreciated. Like Empire State Building, Chrysler or Woolworth.

NYC is sacrificing its image of a world leader in architecture, too. 432 Park and similar brutal projects won't help much.

Let's hope for better times and a Torre Verre coming up as soon as possible.

[El_Greco]

I dont think New York is somehow unique in this, you can see this sort of thing happening all over the place. I dislike it. Aesthetics dont seem to feature on anyones lists anymore.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Idk, there were taller, larger buildings around it that not many people looked at. Surprisingly, one of my classmates actually knew who Mies Van Der Rohe was.

The WTC was modernism mixed with gothic. Everywhere, you could see gothic details, like at the base, the top, the mech. vents, the details under the overhangs of the old 4-6WTC, the setbacks of the 3WTC entrance and its rounded corners, giving an art-deco feel. The soaring vertical lines...
It also had a perfect location, balancing the skyline, adding a focal point, with the Woolworth in between them from certain angles. That complex was loaded with architectural details, including modern details, which are actually loved by many.

I have to disagree. There were a few vague gothic elements (especially at the lobby), but that didn't change the fact that it was literally just a tall box. No, it isn't art-deco. Art-Deco towers almost always are formed in the pencil shape (Think Empire State building) which appeals to human senses.

We should not let our sympathy and emotions get in the way of our aesthetics. The WTC was loved because it was massive and then after 9/11, it was deified.

The WTC was much more than just size. Anybody with a knowledge or appreciation of architecture will know that.

Anyone with a real appreciation and knowledge of architecture can differentiate what is good architecture, and what their text book told them was good architecture.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Aesthetics dont seem to feature on anyones lists anymore.

Beauty is a subjective concept when it comes to design styles. You can't define objectively what is beautiful and what is not. Thus, the market should be left alone in that regard (as in deciding if a full-glass cover or a fake-brownstone façade are better, for instance).

[erbse]

There are concepts of beauty that are shared by a majority of people, and thus these measurements can be considered as objective. Such as the measures featured in Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist, Historicist, Beaux Arts / Jugendstil, Expressionism, Streamline Moderne and Art Déco architecture.

It was only the modernists who really broke all the rules of general aesthetics and natural measurements that were complementing each other.

Though single objects of course can be considered beautiful, it depends on how the modern styles are applied.
Many modern architects sadly aren't able to apply modern measurements in an appealing way - or fail to integrate in architectural ensembles of earlier times which makes their objects arrogant, bulky and unappealing.

[Ingwaeone]

Modern architecture is art. It actually unveals the weakness of the viewer. Everyone can tell you modern achitecture sucks. Yet, it is dominating. What does that tell you about society? It is important to find satisfying answers for the human kind gets the architecture it deserves.

[Hudson11]

as long as there are sections of the city like this

image hosted on flickr


i don't mind seeing a few older buildings razed.