Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
Well, for one thing, everyone says that because it's true. As far as "crappy design", you people who claim to be for preserving "landmarks" always throw in hypocritical comments about design. What that means is you would throw the "landmark" in the garbage with everything else if the design replacing it was something you thought worth while. That puts you in the boat with everyone else, who're you kidding.
|
Where in my comment did I say the Park Lane should be landmarked? I AGREE it should not be.
However, the argument that "NY is not a museum" does nothing to asuage my resistance against bad architecture. Given the choice between keeping a non-landmark worthy yet well designed structure or a brand new eye sore, I'll take the former. That's not an argument against progress or for the embalming of NY, but for maintaining a certain amount of architectural integrity in the city. Especially in a prime location around Central Park.
As for the Park Lane, there is no rendering so clearly my concerns are for naught. However, I do hope the actual building is not as glassy as the massing.