I've only been working in the historic preservation field for a year, but I think there is a pretty clear cut case for demolition here. There are far better examples of post-war buildings in NYC and the point of architectural preservation is not to preserve all the structures from a particular architectural period, but rather to preserve the best examples; 270 Park Ave is not one- (with respect to the historically notable architects). Is this building eligible for the national register? Sure, but its not good enough in comparison to structures such as the Seagram building.
Take it down. That being said, the supertall that replaces it ought to be of equal or better quality from both a materials and design standpoint. |
Quote:
Anyways, on the subject of 270 Park, I agree—it’s a good, but not great, building, and as much as I’ll miss it, I’m not opposed to tearing it down—provided the new building is equally as good. |
Quote:
Ironically, when the midtown east rezoning was first proposed under Bloomberg, there was a design provision, meaning it would have to undergo a design review. That was dropped the second time around. But as far as having someone decide what gets to be built in the city - it doesn't matter if it's a licensed architect or not (every design will have architects working on it). Everyone's opinion on what is good, great, or even decent architecture differs. For that reason, buildings need to be designed and built without restriction (obviously developers will have a say). We don't all agree with architects' designs, no reason to assume we will all agree with what they call good architecture. Meanwhile, this building looms at the end of Vanderbilt Avenue awaiting its fate. But in a couple of years, we should have something above ground to look at, even as One Vanderbilt wraps up. JUNE 5, 2018 http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...4933_HDR02.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...4933_HDR01.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...4934_HDR01.jpg |
I expect that the King of Wall Street will build a castle taller than One Vanderbilt.
|
Quote:
And the Department of City Planning already has licensed architects, and really no politicians or activists. You set the zoning code, you don't prescribe design. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But the one instance we have of the city setting 'design' parameters for a building was an utter travesty: Amanda Burden reducing Tour Verre's height by 200 feet, so it wouldn't "compete" with the ESB. Of course, that was immediately followed by the bottom-shelf 'architecture' of 425 Park Ave. going up at 1400+ feet ... and Tour Verre remaining chopped down to 1000 feet. I'd rather we just have a blanket landmark protection for all pre-WWII structures. That's really where the line between quality, pre-modern architecture and the internationalist crap we've had ever since, was drawn. Let the 270 Parks of the world come down for taller internationalist boxes, keep near-sighted city review boards out of architecture, and retain the city's history, character and best architecture. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What they need is a "council of good taste" composed of, I don't know, maybe a group of obsessive people that spend unhealthy amounts of time reading and debating architecture, urbanism and development on online message boards???
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh that'd just be great!?! Leave all these super important decisions up to a big group of losers! :D |
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bj2eyKml...artino.stierli https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...51853568_n.jpg |
Does anyone know if this will include the small, adjacent building on Madison which includes the Chase branch at ground level?
|
Quote:
|
That's good news. It's actually a pretty big lot.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.