Reply With Quote^ All true. Every bit of it.
Couldn't have said it better.
I like your photos very much but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.On all its fronts it creates this dreary dark streetscape, a glass tower here would be refreshing. This area is already a tad unbearable. Just as Sixth and Park are with the corporate glass boxes.
I see brick that needs a cleaning, and will be dreary no more. I see it for what it could be, and not its present unfortunate condition. I think the massing, rhythmic repetition of forms, and judicious use of attractive detail are beautiful. When you say the area is a tad unbearable, what do you mean exactly? The architecture, the people? Surely you can't mean the beautiful masonry buildings that create a streetscape unlike any other in the world.
I love tall new buildings as much as anyone here. Glassy and airy is wonderful. The more daring the design, the more likely I am to embrace it. But there is a beauty in these old buildings that demands to be acknowledged. In a magnificent grouping, such as you have in that section of 7th, the beauty is greater than the sum of its parts. Why isn't it obvious to everyone?
When you talk about a reinvented Penn Station district, the focus should be on replacing the real junk in the area, namely the modern crap and low rise structures NOT the irreplaceable masonry buildings with their details and beautiful massing.
Dark and dreary indeed.
Oh...the little rendering with the slanted tower is nice, but that isn't what we'd get. I'll bet you a thousand bucks. I'm picturing 4 glass walls, going straight up, a flat top, and in 50 years a bunch of people sitting in a holographic forum lamenting the loss of buildings like the Pennsylvania Hotel.
^ All true. Every bit of it.
Couldn't have said it better.
That streetwall is stunning. And it is the grouping that is wonderful... the look taken together.
BTW: Note the tops of these buildings. Note the set-backs and small towers. This "city-in-the-sky" asthetic is what Robert Stern trys to recreate on CPW.
(And you can be sure if the Penn goes these will be next...)
Enlarge and LOOK...
--
Last edited by Fabrizio; July 1st, 2007 at 11:46 AM.
It'd be even greater if the hotel was replaced with something new. At least the tower will be able to capture some sunlight.
It just seems many of you have just just grown discontent over the recent additions and demolitions throughout the city.
The Empire State Building replaced the former Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. I'll remain optimistic something greater will rise here until proven otherwise. The argument to preserve Hotel Penn seems more about preserving your NY nostalgia than saving something of architectural merit. It'd be more fruitful you guys fight for a greater replacement.
Stu_Jo
This is nice, but not great. More importantly, behind the facade is a mess.
Last edited by Derek2k3; July 6th, 2007 at 11:30 PM.
Beneath the metal canopy, what happens to the lower parts of the four center columns?
Not Landmark Worthy.
Good point. The fenestration is all wrong too. But I have to say it is not one of MM&W's better works. The rustication in the above photo is droll and uninspired. The intercolumnation is elegant but overall it lacks the real fine detailing of a worthy landmark. Without quoining and limestone window heads it is much too flat. And without any of the vertical language of its Art Deco neighbors it is hulking and dour.Originally Posted by ablarc
The Drake on the other hand... >B>(=
*****
Now this is McKim Mead and White Architecture!
Omaha National Bank Building (New York Life Insurance Building)
1888-89, McKim, Mead, and White. The firm designed an identical office tower for the New York Life Insurance Company in Kansas City, Missouri. The building was Omaha's first ten-story structure.
*****
Also in Omaha and better than the Pennsylvania Hotel.
Hill Hotel 1919
Architect: John and Alan McDonald
*****
Sanford Hotel 1916-17 Omaha
*****
Chicago landmark from the same period.
Blackstone Hotel, built 1908-1919
636 South Michigan Avenue
Architects: Marshall and Fox
Designated a Chicago Landmark in 1998
Last edited by Jasonik; July 7th, 2007 at 01:10 AM.
They could make a good horror movie with this one. Where's Stephen King when you need him?
Jasonik: WHAT is the point of all that?
Gee... you could go on and post about a 1000 more photos of more beautiful buildings of various architects. Who cares?
I also think it's hilarious that you point out the Sanford Hotel...understandable that it should get landmark status especially considering that it's in Omaha, but it's no great beauty (btw: notice, like the Penn, it also has a butchered ground floor). Shall I post photos of buildings more beautiful?
And why the Blackstone Hotel? Gee.. why don't you post a photo of the Plaza too?
Derek writes: "The Empire State Building replaced the former Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. I'll remain optimistic something greater will rise here until proven otherwise."
That's a false argument. The ESB was built at a time when ALL skyscrapers used precious expensive materials, had set backs, crowns, ornamentation. It was a guarantee. The public could count on it.
So If we were guaranteed that the replacement of the Hotel Penn were to be a skyscraper with romantic set-backs, covered in limestone or granite, with ornamental details, with a beautiful crown or spire ... WHO here would complain? No one.
"I'll remain optimistic something greater will rise here until proven otherwise."
Yep... keep your fingers crossed. Look, we may very well get a great new building here but it's the possibility of just another dumb glass building that worries me. And also the fact that we'll be getting plenty of other new buildings in the area... wouldn't it be great to have an intact street wall from this era still standing?
"It'd be even greater if the hotel was replaced with something new. At least the tower will be able to capture some sunlight."
The dark and forboding film-noir look of these old streetscapes is atmospheric... that's what you WANT to preserve.
There will be shiney and new across the street. Actually there will ALWAYS be shiney and new.
Hey... maybe it will even be mirrored glass. Like those cheap sunglasses. Then we'll have all the shine you could ask for.
"It just seems many of you have just just grown discontent over the recent additions and demolitions throughout the city."
Uh...yeah.
"Beneath the metal canopy, what happens to the lower parts of the four center columns?"
At some point in the hotel's history they were most likely covered. And guess what? They could most likely could be... uncovered.
Voilà!
----
"They could make a good horror movie with this one. Where's Stephen King when you need him?"
You mean like Roman Polanski made at the dark, scary Dakota?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...ysBabyBook.jpg
--
Last edited by Fabrizio; July 7th, 2007 at 07:34 AM.
Jasonik was posting buildings he thought were similar and more attractive, thats the point. What is the point in your disrespectful response?
Standard operating mode.
More brusque than disrespectful ...
This is just dumb.It'd be even greater if the hotel was replaced with something new. At least the tower will be able to capture some sunlight.
It just seems many of you have just just grown discontent over the recent additions and demolitions throughout the city.
The Empire State Building replaced the former Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. I'll remain optimistic something greater will rise here until proven otherwise. The argument to preserve Hotel Penn seems more about preserving your NY nostalgia than saving something of architectural merit. It'd be more fruitful you guys fight for a greater replacement.
Stu_Jo
This is nice, but not great. More importantly, behind the facade is a mess.
The Empire state building was built at a time where boldness in architecture and height was at its best and will unlike occur again in this city. Also, they tore down the waldorf with the full intent of making even a bigger and better waldorf on park avenue, which they did. NYC during the Art Deco Era was developing itself to be the most beautiful and architectually boldest and magnificent city in the world. Today, the buildings being built in NYC (other than the new WTC) will unlikey attract people from around the world to want to come and see, and I am constantly dissappointed at the architecture and height of many of the developments today.
Too high or not high enough?
Does anyone else think the entrance to this building is a major afterthought? tacking something on like the columnade on the hotel to create 'entrance' would have resulted in a tutor melting my face at college.
Maybe your tutor is wrong.
Possibly mired in the fuddy-duddy shall-nots of Modernism.
Tunnel vision?
(It's OK, I used to be like that.)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks