The glamorous era of New York preservation - the outcry over the demolition of the old Pennsylvania Station, Jackie Onassis picketing to save Grand Central Terminal - is long over.
But judging from Tuesday's weak-kneed decision by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve a scaled-back expansion of the Whitney Museum of American Art, certain New Yorkers have failed to catch on. To them, apparently, the overreaching goal is saving what's old - as if the loss of an undistinguished brownstone parallels the razing of a beloved landmark.
Essentially, for the sake of preserving a humdrum brownstone facade on Madison Avenue, the commission embraced a substitute design for the museum that transforms a generously proportioned public entrance into a more confining experience. The architect, Renzo Piano, drafted the alternative - which would save that brownstone, while demolishing another - when the museum realized that the addition was in danger of being voted down by the commission.
Aside from weakening a promising design, the commission's stubbornness proves that it is unable to distinguish between preserving the city's architectural legacy and embalming it. This is particularly galling given that the commission steadfastly refuses to meet on Edward Durell Stone's endangered 60's "lollipop" building at 2 Columbus Circle - a building that is far more essential to the city's historical fabric.
im in total agreement with ouroussoff on the whitney expansion and stones 2 columbus circle Taken together, the two cases imply a complete disconnect with the changing realities of preservation in New York City. It is as if the commission believes that New York is still living under the threat of tabula rasa Modernism.
We no longer live in the 1960's. There is no Robert Moses, with the power to bulldoze entire neighborhoods in the name of urban progress. Jane Jacobs, the activist who took him on, now lives in Toronto. The old tradition-vs.-Modernism battles are irrelevant. On the contrary, many Modernist buildings are now landmarks worthy of preservation.
neo-con blowhard take on 2cc and their tin foil bedecked piano/nyt conspiracy conjecture.
again, i see no indication for your use of the term "neo-con" on that site. are you employing it as a "term of art" or did you just want to annoy me?
what do you think? how about their new obsession on the bubble pop? count the posts this month. their ugly consumerisimoism needs some sort of response and since they have no comments feature...
...but thanks for keeping it fair and balanced over here.
if i were to guess id say its a slur masquerading as a pun, but if it is a pun then i dont get it. as far as i can tell, your taste in architecture is not the same. you like modernism, they dont. have they espoused some architectural outlook which you are labeling "neo-con," and if so what does that entail?
neo-con=loves the free market, believes 2cc should come down because of the wisdom of market forces? 2cc isn't really modern, in the strict Mies worker housing sense--too confectionary
no pun. tom gets my guilty as charged exaggeration slurs. stones 2cc is a modernist underdog, without a legitimate "international style" modernist heritage and famously derided by nyt architecture critic ada louise huxtable back in the day. time though has proven it to be quite a unique modern structure in much the same way as lapidus's fontainebleau hotel on miami beach. its not about artistic taste though but as ouroussoff points out, a level of complexity now required in approaching todays historic preservation. curbed relentlessly slags nicholas O as a mere muschamp clone and we are in no way muschamp fans here. they seam to come up on the wrong side of almost every issue i care about.
|
im in total agreement with ouroussoff on the whitney expansion and stones 2 columbus circle
- bill 6-01-2005 5:54 pm
neo-con blowhard take on 2cc and their tin foil bedecked piano/nyt conspiracy conjecture.
- bill 6-01-2005 6:45 pm [add a comment]
again, i see no indication for your use of the term "neo-con" on that site. are you employing it as a "term of art" or did you just want to annoy me?
- dave 6-01-2005 7:55 pm [add a comment]
what do you think? how about their new obsession on the bubble pop? count the posts this month. their ugly consumerisimoism needs some sort of response and since they have no comments feature...
- bill 6-01-2005 8:03 pm [add a comment]
...but thanks for keeping it fair and balanced over here.
- bill 6-01-2005 8:17 pm [add a comment]
if i were to guess id say its a slur masquerading as a pun, but if it is a pun then i dont get it. as far as i can tell, your taste in architecture is not the same. you like modernism, they dont. have they espoused some architectural outlook which you are labeling "neo-con," and if so what does that entail?
- dave 6-01-2005 8:17 pm [add a comment]
neo-con=loves the free market, believes 2cc should come down because of the wisdom of market forces? 2cc isn't really modern, in the strict Mies worker housing sense--too confectionary
- tom moody 6-01-2005 8:25 pm [add a comment]
no pun. tom gets my guilty as charged exaggeration slurs. stones 2cc is a modernist underdog, without a legitimate "international style" modernist heritage and famously derided by nyt architecture critic ada louise huxtable back in the day. time though has proven it to be quite a unique modern structure in much the same way as lapidus's fontainebleau hotel on miami beach. its not about artistic taste though but as ouroussoff points out, a level of complexity now required in approaching todays historic preservation. curbed relentlessly slags nicholas O as a mere muschamp clone and we are in no way muschamp fans here. they seam to come up on the wrong side of almost every issue i care about.
- bill 6-01-2005 8:54 pm [add a comment]