Reply With QuoteQuite a dismaying juxtapositioning. When architects tried their best then it was still 100 times better than one of our greatest architect attempting to do his best today.
Yes
No
Quite a dismaying juxtapositioning. When architects tried their best then it was still 100 times better than one of our greatest architect attempting to do his best today.
If you rotate the view clockwise, you will see a building that has quite an ugly backside.
Not all things are perfect in any era.
Value engineering through the ages!
The kernal of a PBS documentary.
I was speaking of the best sides that the buildings offer..... ripples vs detailed beaux-arts.Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
Still an unfair comparison.
Like denigrating the older building because it's so small. How dismaying!
I think the juxtaposition of old and new is one of the good things about New York.
I think it's as much a matter of style as anything. I don't see any reason not to talk about 90 West St. and Lever House in the same sentence. They're certainly wildly different, but that's not the point. Similarly, there's no reason NYbG doesn't compare well to the Chrysler Building. They're different styles, but spectacular towers all the same.
Putting aside any preference between the styles of the two buildings, there's an obvious major flaw in the Gehry building; there isn't one in Chrysler. I think the Gehry building is a fine addition to the city, but it doesn't get into the Hall of Fame like Chrysler.
If the Potter Building gets in, it's mainly because of engineering, one of the earliest examples of fireproofing in the city.
Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; June 23rd, 2012 at 06:00 PM.
Judging by the lack of window shades, the upper portion is still unoccupied.
(Christopher_William on Flickr)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks