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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 89 of 89

Thread: One Liberty Plaza

  1. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    (psst.... the building in the picture passes the "materials criteria" I opined on with flying colors )
    It passes how - emotionally?

    To get this straight, you were talking about what should and should not be landmarked, right?

    If so, that means the application of the landmarks law.

    And you think a law should be applied emotionally? Sure about that?

  2. #77
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB View Post
    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.
    These guys in particular can afford it


  3. #78
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I don't like this building:

    Curious to know why you don't like it, Zip.

    It sure was grubby pre-2000, but I think it's an outstanding example of Florentine Renaissance architecture. Especially like the castle-like decorative machicolations.

  4. #79
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default


  5. #80
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    It passes how - emotionally?

    To get this straight, you were talking about what should and should not be landmarked, right?

    If so, that means the application of the landmarks law.

    And you think a law should be applied emotionally? Sure about that?
    No, in practicality as the predominant materials used/exposed to elements (meaning the material that by volume covers the majority of the facade) may get dirty at some point but will not have to be ever be replaced due to weathering and degradation. Landmarking should encompass durability (which is NOT the same as keeping clean), much more so than any emotinal aspect specially considering that many of these materials are no longer in use (and likely will never be utilzed again in this manner/quality); thereby imparting a very important historical aspect to preserving it... Under that criteria something I abhor, like Metlife tower over GCT, could probably get landmarked even though many find it visually offensive, however I dont see the discontinuation of cement any time soon...

    Nonetheless, that is why the building you cite passess materials criteria with flying colors.

  6. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Landmarking should encompass durability (which is NOT the same as keeping clean),
    Why?

    And if you want to require durability, you have to consider the durability of the structure. Many old landmarks are built using foundation methods that today would be considered unsafe. The durable brick of 502 Canal St came apart during a storm.

    Also, masonry involves mortar, which is not durable. It requires more maintenance than steel or concrete.

    considering that many of these materials are no longer in use (and likely will never be utilzed again in this manner/quality); thereby imparting a very important historical aspect to preserving it...
    This is a false argument. You are talking about a reason why something should be landmarked. I thought we were discussing what should not be landmarked. Not meeting this particular criterion but qualifying in other aspects is no reason to deny landmarking.

    Nonetheless, that is why the building you cite passess materials criteria with flying colors.
    Is that why that building was landmarked, or are there other reasons as well?

  7. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merry View Post
    Curious to know why you don't like it, Zip.

    It sure was grubby pre-2000, but I think it's an outstanding example of Florentine Renaissance architecture. Especially like the castle-like decorative machicolations.
    That's the reason I said it should be a landmark.

    I just don't like the way it looks, especially for where it sits. An enormous site with zero pedestrian interaction.

    That it was once dirty has nothing to do with it. I was around when landmarking began, and some of the stuff we now admire were piles of junk when designated.

  8. #83
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Well, it's massive/monolithic because of the large footprint and lack of setbacks, but the design suits its purpose. It's imposing and evokes strength & stability, which is what you want for a gold reserve fortress. I think the masonry, steelwork, and history compensates for the imposing nature of the building. Also, in the narrow original gotham streetscape all the buildings are built close together anyways so it does not seem out of place to me at all

  9. #84
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    I think what ZtC was getting at, and I'm sympathetic to, is that the building lacks any 'transparency' at the street level. I get WHY this is the case, but it's poor form for a building in the city, and it's something we hold against newer buildings too (blank walls, setbacks, etc).

    Anyway, the windows on old buildings also require regular replacement, and the exterior requires regular cleaning. I'm not sure how this is any different at all from a modern building. In the extreme, where it is all window, clearly more of it gets replaced than when the windows of an older building are redone. But think of something like Woolworth. It's due for a massive amount of its exterior to be replaced.

    Further, while certain exterior materials are less common, the only type of building facade that I don't believe is being used at all anymore is cast iron, so I don't think that's much of an argument either. Based on a structure like NYbG, I imagine that something castiron-like, could even be assembled, should anyone care to do so. In any event, times change. I don't want for a change back to building wood framed buildings in midtown, despite the fact that there were probably quite a few back in the day.

  10. #85
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Why?

    And if you want to require durability, you have to consider the durability of the structure. Many old landmarks are built using foundation methods that today would be considered unsafe. The durable brick of 502 Canal St came apart during a storm.

    Lets stick to façade since that is the predominant determining factor that directs the Landmarking process, not foundations . Brick does fall into some grey area I agree, but a lot of it is based on quality of brick and mortar, it is infrequently utilized; and still more durable than glass n steel.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Also, masonry involves mortar, which is not durable. It requires more maintenance than steel or concrete.
    Per your cure little WP link
    Disadvantages[edit]

    • Extreme weather, under certain circumstances

    (I think we can agree that glass may be a little more less durable; bad comparison dude)

    Really....This is news to me.... is there a study that indicates that masonry is less durable and requires than the vulnerabilities or exposed steel (and all the times you have to paint it)?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    This is a false argument. You are talking about a reason why something should be landmarked. I thought we were discussing what should not be landmarked. Not meeting this particular criterion but qualifying in other aspects is no reason to deny landmarking.
    Durability and history (originality) go hand in hand....
    If it is financially feasible reproduce I don't see the point of landmarking (based on architectural merit; for example, UN tower gets nod because of its contents much more the building itself); why bother? You gonna see iterations of the same forms it throughout history, what is the point? Consider having to rebuild New York Life Tower in Madison Sq and Lever House, which is more economically feasible, and why? And how many times has the former needed a reclad of its façade components yet it is twice the age of the latter??

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Is that why that building was landmarked, or are there other reasons as well?
    Its preserving history and originality of the face of the building (and in hence certain fabric of city) which is what Landmarking is all about. Even though much of structural steel in Lever house the may be original the façade is not original material. The form is not exorbitant to replicate and the façade materials are not the original used by its original builders; so what do you lose if it is gone?

  11. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Lets stick to façade since that is the predominant determining factor that directs the Landmarking process, not foundations .
    You brought durability into the discussion; if the building's integrity (I think that includes the facade) is compromised by the foundation, then it's a valid issue. I laugh when people make mistakes and follow them with a .

    Brick does fall into some grey area I agree, but a lot of it is based on quality of brick and mortar, it is infrequently utilized; and still more durable than glass n steel.
    I think the point has been made by others that all buildings need regular maintenance, but you're the only one that makes blanket statements about this thing compared to that thing.

    Really....This is news to me.... is there a study that indicates that masonry is less durable and requires than the vulnerabilities or exposed steel (and all the times you have to paint it)?
    You must have made this up; I didn't say it.

    Its preserving history and originality of the face of the building (and in hence certain fabric of city) which is what Landmarking is all about.
    That is not what landmarking is all about. Many properties are landmarked because of who was in them, or who built them, or how they were used. There is very little aesthetic value in the Meatmarket District.

    Even though much of structural steel in Lever house the may be original the façade is not original material. The form is not exorbitant to replicate and the façade materials are not the original used by its original builders; so what do you lose if it is gone?
    Take a walk through Brooklyn historic districts, and see how many brownstone rowhouses are refaced using materials and methods not available when they were first built. Modern window replacements are approved by LPC. Fiberglas and other composites are approved for cornice replacement. Sometimes only a shell remains, roof and other elements stripped away when a landmark is re-adapted. And many landmarks are not the original iteration, but have been altered over time.

    This warrants repetition:
    Its preserving history and originality of the face of the building (and in hence certain fabric of city) which is what Landmarking is all about.
    You reduce history to the way something looks, and further restrict that narrow-minded viewpoint to only things that look good to you.

  12. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB View Post
    In any event, times change. I don't want for a change back to building wood framed buildings in midtown, despite the fact that there were probably quite a few back in the day.
    In Trepye's world, does anything recently built, or yet to be built, ever get landmarked?

    Ironically, that reduces the LPC to a caretaker role, less relevant in the modern world, and plays into one of the biggest attracks on landmarking - "it turns the city into a museum."

  13. #88
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    You brought durability into the discussion; if the building's integrity (I think that includes the facade) is compromised by the foundation, then it's a valid issue. I laugh when people make mistakes and follow them with a .
    Is it a mistake to assume that the LPC will reject foundation material if you completely deviated from the original material??

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I think the point has been made by others that all buildings need regular maintenance, but you're the only one that makes blanket statements about this thing compared to that thing.
    It is not a blanket statement to compare examples of a point one's trying to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    You must have made this up; I didn't say it.

    I said this

    Really....This is news to me.... is there a study that indicates that masonry is less durable and requires [more maintenance] than the vulnerabilities or exposed steel (and all the times you have to paint it)?

    based on this ....
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post

    Also, masonry involves mortar, which is not durable. It requires more maintenance than steel or concrete.
    (clarify)

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Many properties are landmarked because of who was in them, or who built them, or how they were used. There is very little aesthetic value in the Meatmarket District.

    Hence my example:
    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    (based on architectural merit; for example, UN tower gets nod because of its contents much more the building itself)



    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Take a walk through Brooklyn historic districts, and see how many brownstone rowhouses are refaced using materials and methods not available when they were first built. Modern window replacements are approved by LPC. Fiberglas and other composites are approved for cornice replacement. Sometimes only a shell remains, roof and other elements stripped away when a landmark is re-adapted. And many landmarks are not the original iteration, but have been altered over time.

    Do these replacements encompass 90-100% of the façade (like you have to do to modernist façades) , or just a portion of it?


    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    This warrants repetition: You reduce history to the way something looks, and further restrict that narrow-minded viewpoint to only things that look good to you
    Are you broad-minded enough to engage in conversation without flinging banana peels?
    Anyways, I cover this obnoxious ZtC sentiment with this...

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Its preserving history and originality of the face of the building (and in hence certain fabric of city) which is what Landmarking is all about.
    (hint: note the underlines )

  14. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Is it a mistake to assume that the LPC will reject foundation material if you completely deviated from the original material??
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here about authentic foundation materials; my point was about the durability of buildings built on old foundations, not whether the foundations warrant designation.

    In the 150 Charles thread, LL and I had a discussion about the buildings in the Weehawken District. He noted the age of the building with shingles.

    While it was built in 1830, almost nothing on the building is original, or even appropriate to the period. The original ground floor windows were bays, the doorway has been changed with a modern iron gate. The upstairs windows were changed. The roof is tarpaper with skylights. Even the old-looking shingles are 20th century cedar shakes. All this was done before the building was landmarked.

    The 4 houses at 502-508 Canal had modern windows, AC holes punched in the walls, and 1970s roll-up gates.

    The Meatpacking buildings that now house Sephora were almost completely dismantled.

    The AT Stewart Store on Chambers and Broadway is undergoing another renovation. You might look at it and assume that the older-looking blocks are original, but that's not the case. There was a major renovation in the 1990s, and at least one before that. I've walked by it frequently since the 1970s, and it seems to be behind a scaffold more often than not.

    If you think that glass and steel are not durable enough to warrant designation, should the Soho Cast Iron district be decertified? Unlike stainless steel, aluminum, and corrosion resistant composites, they are 19th century iron. Need to be scraped and painted.

    The Lever House example was to show how easily a modern facade can be replicated. It was neglected by the original owners and allowed to deteriorate. Only after it was designated was pressure put on to renovate it. The replacement has about 20 years on it; take a look at it and let us know how well it has held up.

    Do these replacements encompass 90-100% of the façade (like you have to do to modernist façades) , or just a portion of it?
    It's usually the entire building.

    It is not a blanket statement to compare examples of a point one's trying to make.
    So you chose an ugly building, one that will doubtfully never be considered for landmarking, to make what point - that it is even uglier while being painted?

    I don't see a facade replacement going on. As I remember it, it wasn't long ago when the biggest building in the city collapsed just across the street. 1 Liberty seems to have held up rather well.

    Anyways, I cover this obnoxious ZtC sentiment with this...

    (hint: note the underlines )
    The underlines are yours. If the statement is wrong, underlining only highlights the mistake. So again, that is not what landmarking is about; it is often only about history, the originality long gone. Sorry you think this is obnoxious, but I think what's obnoxious is you trying to tell people what they should like.

    Are you broad-minded enough to engage in conversation without flinging banana peels?
    I say what's on my mind, and am clear about it. I don't hide behind .

    What does that even mean - you're bored; think I'm too stupid to follow what you're saying; can't find the words; what?

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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