Reply With QuoteAnd there's a right way, and a wrong way, to go about it.
And what's the point?
Historic preservation spurs economies.
Tribeca? Soho? Now the most expensive addresses in the US.
The Miami Beach Art-Deco district? It put Miami back on the map... added glamour and started a chain-reaction of development in the rest of the city.
Historic-preservation = a flourishing economy.
Capitalism indeed.
http://www.achp.gov/economic-statewide.html
And there's a right way, and a wrong way, to go about it.
There is good good and constructive Capitalism and Bad and corrupt Capitalism. The Capitalism that is creating the new WTC and the Chicago spire is very good, and Macklowe is at the opposite side of the spectrum.Originally Posted by kliq6
sure New York is old, which is why we can't preserve everything
Midtown Manhattan used to be a residential street with mansions that were beautiful. If you guys were around back then, you'd have stopped them from tearing that down and building the Drake, or the rest of high rise Manhattan.
This is an old city - there's lots of cool old stuff here. But I think you really need to pick and choose what you preserve and also allow the city to reinvent itself and flourish. On balance, these seem like sensible investments - the Drake doesn't seem to be historically distinctive compared to similar buildings which are all over Manhattan.
"Midtown Manhattan used to be a residential street with mansions that were beautiful. If you guys were around back then, you'd have stopped them from tearing that down and building the Drake, or the rest of high rise Manhattan. "
The preservationist movement was born after WWII for a reason. It was at the height of the glass and steel International Style era. We were losing the fine materials, craftsmanship, the details, the artistry seen in previous styles. Even "modern" buildings built up until the War, like the Empire State, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building etc. made lavish use of limestone, marble, decoration, murals, sculptures... but by the 1960's it was obvious that an era had come to a close. And that's why so many are interested in preserving this legacy.
NYC needs the Drake just as much as it needs Norman Foster, Frank Ghery, Renzo Piano... and great modern architecture.
(BTW: see the tread about London to see how an ancient city can remain vital, up-to-the-minute and how it can incorporate modern developement.)
^ Aside from its being the only crafted and architecturally interesting building on a block composed of 2-3 other non-descript, cheap-looking, even hideous, modern boxes, the Drake allows for the amalgum of old and new that gives the City its appeal.
you caught what I was thinking, thanks
Curious to see peoples opinion on this fact, ESB was built on the lot of the old Waldorf Astoria, should we have stopped that?
The answer is obviously no, because the ESB was a superalitve building in terms of size and design. If a spectacular building were going up on the Drake site, fewer of us would be outraged... instead a great, classic, crafted building - of a kind that will never be built again - is being replaced by a short, cheap, ugly glass box.
Is anyone sorry that the Mayfair Hotel, built in 1927, was replaced with Robert Stern's magnificent 15CPW?
No.
Why?
Partly ^^^ because the Mayflower Hotel had been stripped of much of its facade detail back in the 70's. Plus there was the eyesore of the rubble strewn lot along Broadway, which had sat fallow for 10+ years ...
Following the thread. My point (in responce to Klig's post... and adding to RandySavage's argument) is that a fine old building, the Mayflower(and for sake of argument, let's imagine that the ornamentation had not been previously stripped off) was replaced by a FINE new building. A NEW landmark. And of couse that's fine with everyone.
( The Mayflower with ornamentation: http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=486378 )
Developers in NY suck. Lois Weiss reported in the Post today that someone bought four buildings on 3rd between 78th and 79th and will replace them with a condo. I looked them up on propertyshark, and they're beautiful. Third has so many filthy, unornamented walk-ups that beg for redevelopment, and this creep decides to raze the nice ones. It's BS!!
I'm having great difficulty jump-starting a Preserve New York to pre-Henry Hudson times. Everyone looks at me like I'm a crackpot, but it would resolve your dispute: how do you determine what to landmark and preserve . Hey, it's sure to be LEED Platinum (maybe they'll even establish a Titanium level just for my idea), plus it will have a negative carbon footprint. Any takers? I didn't think so. Well, time to hug a tree; catchya later.
Sorry, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The new WTC is saddled with billions in federal aid money, as well as huge commitments from federal and state governments to lease space once it's built. Plus, the Port Authority is heavily involved. There may be certain aspects of the plan that are capitalistic, but calling it "very good capitalism" is just plain wrong.
I have yet to see any definitive evidence showing that form of capitalism produces better results (read: nicer architecture) than the so-called bad/corrupt form of Macklowe et al.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks