View Poll Results: How do you rate One Liberty Plaza?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • 10

    3 4.23%
  • 9

    5 7.04%
  • 8

    7 9.86%
  • 7

    10 14.08%
  • 6

    7 9.86%
  • 5

    5 7.04%
  • 4

    13 18.31%
  • 3

    9 12.68%
  • 2

    3 4.23%
  • 1

    9 12.68%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 89

Thread: One Liberty Plaza

  1. #61
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    ^ Ditto.

    The Singer Tower/City Investing Building would've withstood the test of time far better...with elegance and pride.

  2. #62
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kz1000ps View Post
    For all that talk about "sleekness" & "simplicity" modernism/international ages like absolute shit. Unlike turn of century facades this glass and steel degrade easily without constant painting and makes them more perishable structurally.....and emotionally for that matter as they dont exude much inherent visual appeal and admiration from the majority of layman. This is why landmarking these buildings makes no sense. If they went not many would miss them but they age at a more faster rate.

  3. #63
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Sure, because nothing has ever been torn down for just being dirty [sic]. Oh, and this....


  4. #64

    Default

    Stone deteriorates and needs constant maintenance, especially since industrialization. And it is much more expensive and labor intensive to repair.

    Steel deteriorates, but glass is relatively inert, doesn't react with compounds in the air. Lasts a long time.

  5. #65
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    ^ Hey, whose side are you on, Zip?

    Re the maintenance issues, absolutely; but I'd much rather see a deteriorated Singer Tower than a run-down paint job on a brutal steel box painted black.

  6. #66

    Default

    I'm not really on any side here. All buildings have to be cared for.

    There are a lot of designated properties that I don't like; but I respect the landmarks law, and don't think it should conform to my preferences.

    And it seems to be overlooked on this forum, but landmarking is also about history. Does anyone think this was designated for its aesthetics?



    Lever House is over 60 years old; in 1998 it was reclad, and looks great.

  7. #67
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB View Post
    Sure, because nothing has ever been torn down for just being dirty [sic]. Oh, and this....
    Who said anything about tearing something down due to cleanliness? Penn Station was a simple cleanup job.... In fact it reminds me of the little vapid play on perception that O'Malley ployed on the need to move out of Ebbetts, cuz the bathrooms were smelly & dirty as if it was impossible to clean them...
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Stone deteriorates and needs constant maintenance, especially since industrialization. And it is much more expensive and labor intensive to repair.
    Everything deterioates.... What deterioates faster and needs more constant upkeep, stone or steel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Steel deteriorates, but glass is relatively inert, doesn't react with compounds in the air. Lasts a long time.

    Not inert enough to keep stuff like this from happening....
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Lever House is over 60 years old; in 1998 it was reclad, and looks great.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Everything deterioates.... What deterioates faster and needs more constant upkeep, stone or steel?
    The answer is not as black & white as you think:
    For all that talk about "sleekness" & "simplicity" modernism/international ages like absolute shit. Unlike turn of century facades this glass and steel degrade easily without constant painting and makes them
    The cost of renovation has to be taken into account, whether or not an owner is willing to take on the expense. At some point, someone is going to have to have to take on the cost of Woolworth.

    Lever House was quickly and easily reclad.

    And non-modernist buildings are made of the same materials. So I guess 56 Leonard and Durst Fetner will "age like shit."

  9. #69
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    The answer is not as black & white as you think: The cost of renovation has to be taken into account, whether or not an owner is willing to take on the expense. At some point, someone is going to have to have to take on the cost of Woolworth.

    Lever House was quickly and easily reclad.

    And non-modernist buildings are made of the same materials. So I guess 56 Leonard and Durst Fetner will "age like shit."
    Non-modernists steel is predominantly protected by durable facades such as masonry; whereas modernist are exposed structural [painted] steel and glass. Yes, the glass on those two gorgeous towers (and the structure on WTC train station for that matter) will age like shit, the cement though should hold up adequately (WTC station's steel may not be a pretty sight though, lol). Besides even when they age like crap their remarkable forms will detract attention from such conundrums of the material used; once the material is degraded from your standard 60's modernist/international all you are left with is a weathered/botchy box, per above.

  10. #70

    Default

    I love these contorted explanations and rationalizations to try and extricate oneself from contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Non-modernists steel is predominantly protected by durable facades such as masonry; whereas modernist are exposed structural [painted] steel and glass.
    Really? Where did you get that from?

    Irony of ironies: Here's one that's all stone.

    Here's one that's all glass.

    Yes, the glass on those two gorgeous towers (and the structure on WTC train station for that matter) will age like shit, the cement though should hold up adequately (WTC station's steel may not be a pretty sight though, lol). Besides even when they age like crap their remarkable forms will detract attention from such conundrums of the material used; once the material is degraded from your standard 60's modernist/international all you are left with is a weathered/botchy box, per above.
    Yeah whatever, but are you running away from your statement:
    For all that talk about "sleekness" & "simplicity" modernism/international ages like absolute shit. Unlike turn of century facades this glass and steel degrade easily without constant painting and makes them more perishable structurally.....and emotionally for that matter as they dont exude much inherent visual appeal and admiration from the majority of layman. This is why landmarking these buildings makes no sense.
    Emphasis mine.

    So in 30 years, given their facades will "age like shit," should this or this be off the table for designation?
    Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; January 14th, 2015 at 04:38 PM.

  11. #71
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    I didn't run; you didn't thoroughly read....


    That and that ( or especially this) pass this criteria, IMO:
    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    and emotionally for that matter as they dont exude much inherent visual appeal and admiration from the majority of layman. This is why landmarking these buildings makes no sense. If they went not many would miss them but they age at a more faster rate.

  12. #72

    Default

    I read it, but I ignored "emotionally," because that's a personal opinion. And how do you speak for the emotional opinions "of the majority of laymen?" Some people personally believe that nothing should be landmarked. The way different materials deteriorate and on what type of buildings that happens is more an objective issue. Thus, my post #64.

    I interpreted your statement as: "I only want things that I like to be landmarked." A pre-determined conclusion looking for examples. Thus my post #66:
    There are a lot of designated properties that I don't like; but I respect the landmarks law, and don't think it should conform to my preferences.
    I don't like this building:



    Should it be a landmark? Absolutely.

    For all its faults, I'm glad the LPC isn't narrow-minded.
    Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; January 14th, 2015 at 05:16 PM.

  13. #73

    Default

    A reclad doesn't generally mean it's because the building, or its associated glass façade is failing to the elements. Much like the United Nations building, it probably just means that the building needs to be brought up to a standard that we modern folks can work with, and it is too important of a building to be torn down.

    Nine times out of ten it's not just what's on the outside that the LPC is looking for. For all we know, the interior of the Lever House could be a masterpiece.

  14. #74
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I read it, but I ignored "emotionally," because that's a personal opinion. And how do you speak for the emotional opinions "of the majority of laymen?" Some people personally believe that nothing should be landmarked. The way different materials deteriorate and on what type of buildings that happens is more an objective issue. Thus, my post #64.

    I interpreted your statement as: "I only want things that I like to be landmarked." A pre-determined conclusion looking for examples. Thus my post #66:

    I don't like this building:



    Should it be a landmark? Absolutely.

    For all its faults, I'm glad the LPC isn't narrow-minded.
    Well good for you and your noble justification of a building you don't like with your broad-minded declaration, ZtC ....

    (psst.... the building in the picture passes the "materials criteria" I opined on with flying colors )

  15. #75
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Sure, but take a look at how it looked before cleaning in 2000...





    All buildings require ongoing and intensive maintenance to remain attractive over any significant period of time, no matter the exterior cladding.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. East River Plaza Mall
    By DominicanoNYC in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: December 13th, 2014, 08:35 AM
  2. Queens Plaza Being Cleaned Up
    By Agglomeration in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 15th, 2014, 08:40 AM
  3. Liberty Enlightening the World (Statue of Liberty)
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: June 30th, 2013, 09:57 PM
  4. Huge Expansion For Kings Plaza
    By muscle1313 in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2010, 07:25 AM
  5. Liberty Bonds
    By BrooklynRider in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 12th, 2006, 10:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software