pearl; found on Pearl Street. Honestly speaking - and I know many here would disagree - the aesthetics of a building is only one aspect of what makes for great architecture.
And if you give me a few minuites, I will get back to you with a LINK to support my point!
I think you also need maybe a rendering of the real urban experience. I was at Southbridge during 9/11 trying to get my 90-year-old disabled mother out of there as literally hundreds of thousands of people streamed out of the canyon of Water Street headed for the Brooklyn Bridge. No one looked at one another, everyone went in a rush as fast as they could to save their own life. If my mother had crawled on the ground, I doubt if any of your urban experience high tower people would have even jumped over her. Later, more uptown, we watched hundreds of flying cars headed north, no one stopping even as most were single passenger. I think "that's the reality" -- a great line from Altman's The Player. How would Gehry's very upscale designer "chaos" fit into this alienation and shit? very very well, I'm sure.
"You couldn't tell her the place was ugly as sin, she had no "taste." But that wasn't the function of the place, never was. And what will a subsidized apartment"
Sorry, my comment wasn't phrased too well. What I mean is that you are making what I see as being a valid point; I agree that there is more to architecture than 'good taste'.
My comment was not 'intended' to be insulting: sorry if you took it that way.
I'll address the holes in the ground theme running around the board, it is everywhere so this is a good a place as any. The commercial real estate market clearly has been a vehicle in a monster scam to sell worthless paper to the world, deirivatives adding to your whatever 50 or 500 trillion. The 3.7 trillion market, the number I've read recently and which seems about to implode, no doubt supports a vast derivative market of toxic paper that has been the real reason half the towers have been build and overbuilt, so no one can afford or use them (and in these pages you want MORE, MORE, perfect flaks for an industry hitting a wall). Anyway, the Gehry is clearly all about the gentrification of The City Hall area over to the Seaport, and this has, I contend, nothing to do with "authenticity" at all, no more than all the bogus bonds and credit-swaps have to do with reality. I'm sure you can make a great case for formal deconstruction here, but many people's lives are already quite deconstructed and they want some, any, order. That's what lower Manhattan actually tried to convey, banker stone and stability, the old pictures of guys with top hats walking the streets leisurely amid a few horses and buggies, something strangely out of The Magnificent Ambersons. Fake, certainly, in its way (as in 1907, 1931-33, 1937, etc.) but actually identifiable. The stuff going up now? I don't think you can say the same, and there is far far too much of it competing for so little space. The only saving grace really is another possible Depression. Twenty years from now most of what seems so revolutionary will seem merely very weird.
@ lizbeth li:
I think you're missing the point about Southbridge in this discussion.
Architecture (of Southbridge or Gehry) isn't the issue; everyone has their opinion. And as to who are "real New Yorkers," well, everyone who lives here is.
You introduced Southbridge into the discussion by stating the negative effects that the Gehry building would have on the complex. But the point is that Southbridge disrupted the existing neighborhood to a much greater degree.
Opened in 1970. 10-12 acres of private property lifted out of the city fabric. Beekman, Spruce, and Ann Sts all cut off. While the complex had many residents, it contributed nothing to the development of the surrounding area. The Financial District remained a nine-to-five neighborhood, and as business migrated to Midtown, became more desolate. What remained of the Seaport neighborhood was cut off from the rest of Manhattan.
Southbridge is anti-urban. But should it be taken down? Of course not. No one should ever have to be forced out of their home. It's there, and should be accepted, but it's a bit hypocritical to complain about the effects of Gehry on Southbridge considering what Southbridge did to the area 30 years ago.
The Gehry tower isn't in a low rise neighborhood, like Chinatown or the Village. There are low rise buildings throughout the area, but that's not the character of the neighborhood, including Southbridge. The tower sits within the street grid. The plaza you complain about was added when the design was changed, moving the tower away from the Park Row building, at the request of residents.
Since you don't live here, your comments about schools and the general needs of the neighborhood are made in ignorance. Attend a few Community Board 1 meetings before you offer opinions. The Financial District is one of the fastest growing neighborhoods in NYC. The hospital was in financial trouble, and the sale of the parking lot gave them funds and expansion space.
Lower Manhattan schools are overcrowded; it's one of the main concerns of residents. If you think it's not an important issue, go back in this thread and see what happened when Bloomberg threatened to withhold funding.
You don't like how the neighborhood is evolving? Fine, that's your opinion. I've been living here for quite a while, and began working here in the 70s. There's no comparison.
I'm not sure what you mean about no comparison. I've certainly been there enough over the same amount of time, and you might be romanticizing a neighborhood (taken by Southbridge) that you never saw (which I actually did see, however hardly noticing it except that it was derelict in the extreme, and dangerous). One thing strikes out clearly right away in your romantic notions and wrongful blame, the real culprit hurting the waterfront certainly wasn't Southbridge but the East Side Highway and more importantly the demise of all fishing and a working harbor. You are right that Southbridge took over far more land than Gehry (which probably is every bit as big in cubic feet, so it's mass is comparable), but that's the point of having less density. That Southbridge is ugly is the problem, of course. But the idea of the place wasn't wrong, I contend, but the execution. The idea of a building the size of the Gehry is wrong. About the kids and schools. You would have to run the school age population of the area below the bridge by me, I don't think there are that many kids, and don't include the West Side. Do you think the candy colored yellow blotch you guys all hate will have any kids? I don't. I think it might have a few anorexic models about to jump. My sense the apartments and condos are almost all for singles or empty nesters, the school is some sop the Gehry can throw as being useful. The shortage of schools in the city is a different problem and my argument is to put the schools in the neighborhoods where the kids live. About Beekman? If you get into an ambulance on the corner of Gold and Beekman and need emergency treatment, tell the driver you will sign any waver and could they take you to Cornell miles away.
First it was futurecity ----> yankees12 ----> lisbeth li ----> ?
I'm seeing a trend here. I wonder who (or what's) in store for us next.
My family has been in NYC for over a century. I knew the area before Southbridge.I've certainly been there enough over the same amount of time, and you might be romanticizing a neighborhood (taken by Southbridge) that you never saw
I've been here the entire time; you haven't. My views are complete; yours are not, given all the mistakes you've already made.One thing strikes out clearly right away in your romantic notions and wrongful blame
The FDR has been around since the 30s. Southbridege took an existing neighborhood west of the highway and turned it into a private enclave with little connection to the city around itthe real culprit hurting the waterfront certainly wasn't Southbridge but the East Side Highway and more importantly the demise of all fishing and a working harbor.
That's not the problem at all. See above.That Southbridge is ugly is the problem, of course.
I contend that the idea of the place was wrong, but reading further, you don't elaborate how the execution was the problem. If you are going to say that it could have looked better, I reject that as a solution. Appearance can't solve poor urban design.But the idea of the place wasn't wrong, I contend, but the execution.
You really should stop talking about this. You have no knowledge on the subject, and the assumptions you've stated so far are incorrect. School overcrowding is already a big problem throughout the area. If you don't believe me, write a letter to the Chair of CB1. Probably one of the few places it's not a problem is Southbridge, because although not intended at the outset, it's evolved into a retirement community. You'd think that they'd want the hospital across the street to remain financially viable.About the kids and schools.
Yes, and so does the renovated Cocoa Exchange down the street, and across from that, 67 Wall. Come down here on a weekend and you'll see baby strollers.Do you think the candy colored yellow blotch you guys all hate will have any kids?
Incorrect. Ratner, the developer, was forced to include the school as a condition of project approval.the school is some sop the Gehry can throw as being useful.
My sense the apartments and condos are almost all for singles or empty nesters,Again incorrect. You talk about neighborhoods as if they are towns apart.The shortage of schools in the city is a different problem and my argument is to put the schools in the neighborhoods where the kids live.
Just from 2000 to 2008, the number of households with children has increased 40% in Lower Manhattan
Lizbeth Li, you've basically hijacked this thread with uninformed, inaccurate opinions, forcing those of us who know what's going on to correct you, only to be refuted by your "sense" of things.
You really don't know anything about present demographics or other conditions. You're just making stuff up and throwing it out there. It's getting us nowhere. Move on to something else.
I read first the intro to your post, zip, and it was more of the same in-crowd being wonderful to one another, and then you came on, laughably, you are complete, I am not complete, your family was around NYC for a hundred years (so was mine, big deal), so you are complete. I can't even argue with language like this or your little gang of fans (Yanks whatever, Liz zip -- truly global in pointed argument). I gave up reading your post after a few points, since you weren't addressing any of mine at all. It hardly matters. I'm sure some people around here got to listen to a different voice. I am really glad you're complete though, that is a new one.
You're not listening to anyone. We all form our own opinions around here. Get off the soap box and give us all a break.
Nice shot, with that crazy turn from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR...