pianoman11686
January 3rd, 2008, 07:32 PM
We've had several polls about our most hated, individual buildings in New York - and their architects. We've also developed, more informally, an understanding of the best and worst developers, as well as a rough theory about what constitutes "good development".
At this point in time, it seems there is a very general boom in construction across the city, touching almost every industry (residential, hotel, commercial, academic) and use (civic, private). It also seems that our dissatisfaction with new developments is often concentrated - towards one or two particular developers (e.g., Chang), architects (e.g., Kaufman and Kondylis), and specific uses (e.g., limited-service hotels and office buildings).
But what area of development do we think constitutes the most serious affront to New York's environment? In other words, what "use" produces the most ugly, damaging buildings?
I've compiled a short list of "uses;" vote for only one. They are broken down into categories that do not cover equal numbers of buildings. For example, residential and commercial buildings make up a far larger stock than do hotels or academia. So, use your discretion in voting: take into account quantity, and quality. If a particular use may have only a few large, very glaring examples of bad architecture, which damage both skyline and street-level, then it may outweigh another use that has many smaller, subpar structures. Or, if one use has several bad apples but equally as many architectural gems, then it may not be as damaging, overall, as a use that is plagued by mediocrity.
Also, take into account historical, current, and future construction, as well as destruction. And, if you're unsure how to classify a building, use your best intuition. For example, while the Bloomberg Tower is officially considered "mixed-use," it still has the body of an office building, and its main use is commercial.
Thanks for voting.
At this point in time, it seems there is a very general boom in construction across the city, touching almost every industry (residential, hotel, commercial, academic) and use (civic, private). It also seems that our dissatisfaction with new developments is often concentrated - towards one or two particular developers (e.g., Chang), architects (e.g., Kaufman and Kondylis), and specific uses (e.g., limited-service hotels and office buildings).
But what area of development do we think constitutes the most serious affront to New York's environment? In other words, what "use" produces the most ugly, damaging buildings?
I've compiled a short list of "uses;" vote for only one. They are broken down into categories that do not cover equal numbers of buildings. For example, residential and commercial buildings make up a far larger stock than do hotels or academia. So, use your discretion in voting: take into account quantity, and quality. If a particular use may have only a few large, very glaring examples of bad architecture, which damage both skyline and street-level, then it may outweigh another use that has many smaller, subpar structures. Or, if one use has several bad apples but equally as many architectural gems, then it may not be as damaging, overall, as a use that is plagued by mediocrity.
Also, take into account historical, current, and future construction, as well as destruction. And, if you're unsure how to classify a building, use your best intuition. For example, while the Bloomberg Tower is officially considered "mixed-use," it still has the body of an office building, and its main use is commercial.
Thanks for voting.