Tag: New York City

Preservation’s Choice

The New York Times has a brief article about a church that could not afford to expand on their historic structure, and so instead worked a deal with a developer to get space under a new highrise. In addition, neighborhood improvements were also carried out. The article poses the most poignant question that preservationists must face: is the historic architectural fabric more important than the quality of life of those who inhabit the spaces?

This question is really the crux of modern preservation. With modern laws and sensibilities homes and structures relating to famous people will be saved and preserved, it is the fabric and architectural experiments of the nameless faceless crowd that really make up our architecturally history and too often they are pushed aside for progress. In the case of this article it IS sad to see such an interesting structure fade into the past, but then again is it worse to see a community die around a building like this? The issue here comes down to a matter of means, if it was possible the church should have found a developed willing to build a building that would create architectural interest and install a plaque/display about the old building. That way, even though some of the history would be lost, it would not be forgotten, and the new building would have the potential of filling the same architectural niche that the old one did.

Article: Urban Renewal or Malpractice?

Workers are tearing off the old skin to make this Katherine Hepburn into Kathrine Zeta Jones.

[Image via curbed.com]

Curbed has an article about an early 20th century façade being torn down in Manhattan to put up a glass box (apparently, this project has been in the works for some time, but is just starting construction, see this other article for before and after pictures of the overall building). The preservationist in me cries out in disgust.

This building is a great example of early 20th century architecture. The chicago style windows fitted between corinthian columns and thinner windows above that emphasis the vertical nature of this early 20th Century skyscraper scream pre-Modern to me. In an other time, the loss of a fabric building like this wouldn’t even be a story, but in the age of historic preservation and with New York City rekindling its romance with glass and steel it begs me ask the question: Do famous buildings, like famous people, deserve celebrity treatment, or is the fabric of a city an integral part of its cultural landscape worth preserving just as much as its standouts? In cities with historic districts the answer has been a resounding yes, but this historic treatment does not always extend to this past century. Some architects/preservationists who would chain themselves to a building by Burnham and Root were the ones calling the loudest for the destruction of the Rivergate in New Orleans. Again this leaves me to wonder, should history be forcibly frozen in the streets of our cities and towns, or should innovation and advancement be allowed free reign and history left to a museum and historical parks? I don’t have the answer, but I know that there is a livable middle between those extremes.

As for 3 Columbus Circle, I wish the architect and developer had looked at the Hearst Tower before they decided that total skin replacement was the way to go.

Article: Shoot for the stars, land in the gutter

Santiago Calatrava's Original Concept for the Path Station

[Image via Curbed.com]

So it looks like another one of the major Lower Manhattan re-building efforts is facing budget problems. Santiago Calatrava’s path station entrance may be looking at a major value engineering effort in so much that it may be another architect’s rein-visioning of the station, according to an post on Curbed.com. This is bad news for the neighborhood, first the Freedom Tower has yet to start construction (lets not even talk about the deisgn process) then the Fulton Street Transit Hub is looking at ways to work their budget, now this. All of this makes me wonder, has the New York City development community been a victim of the most American of financial flaws – spending beyond their means? Or is this a case of bureaucratic inaction catching up with rising construction costs and inflation? Either way, I think that this is a specter of what is to happening across the board with American projects, I see it in my own office as well. Clients either commission Coach tastes on a Canal Street Budget, or they get massive sticker shock when they see their cost estimate and throw a ton of money into value engineering exercises which end up sucking part of the cost-value of the project away.

So where do we go from here? One of two places, clients need to learn what they can afford and settle for that- which is not likely to happen, or architects need to learn how to better stretch their budgets and keep an eye on the bottom line. The latter seems more reasonable to me. In the current practice of architecture I have yet to know anyone who does their own cost estimating, most firms hire out. Much like catering, its hard to really know where your money’s going and to plan for a budget while designing when someone else does the math. The current architectural work force has to go out of their way (and find a willing management) to learn about project financial and how to plan accordingly. This is a weak point in our profession and can lead to shattered dreams, broken promises, and lots of runny, runny yolk on your face. Much like the port authority has now.

[2017 UPDATE] Calatrava’s station has been built and opened to the public, but the critical reception to it fell along the lines I described previously. This New York Times Article from March 2016 gives an update on the long history of the project and the eventual completed space. The takeaway is that, like the much maligned second avenue subway or the new silver line for the Washington, DC Metro, it seems public architecture and infrastructure is too often slow to fruition and costs too much for the final product.