Well, this wasn't a surprise: An Upper East Side community board committee moved to reject plans for a 30 floor apartment tower at 980 Madison Avenue. The design by Lord Norman Foster, ballyhooed for his addition to the Hearst Building and a design for the World Trade Center, is shorter than the Carlyle Hotel nearby, but the Carlyle's height is less obtrusive due to set backs.
Just last week, the NY Times' architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff hailed the design, calling it "the most handsome building to rise along Madison Avenue since the Whitney Museum of American Art was completed 40 years ago," while acknowledging it would be a tough sell to the neighborhood. Gothamist had wondered if Ouroussoff's words were meant as a way to convince more design-forward residents, but some were upset. Really upset. The NY Times has the negative reaction:
“A glass dagger plunged into the heart of the Upper East Side,” said Dan Goldberg, a resident of East 76th Street. “Midtown is filled with lots of prima donna-ish buildings, so maybe it makes less of a difference there, but up here, our prevailing skyline is more consistent, and Foster’s aggressively futuristic vision of 980 Madison would kill that consistency."Yeah, Madison Avenue should be like Petite Paris! Put more dog poop on the sidewalks, change the street system to arrondisements! But it brings up an interesting debate about what a historic district is supposed to be - Paul Byard of Columbia's historic preservation program tells the NY Sun that "the Landmarks Commission is increasingly faced with pressure from some preservationist groups to only approve designs identical to a neighborhood's existing character."“What makes Paris beautiful?” asked Don Gringer, a Park Avenue resident. “Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments — all similar and somewhat matching but working together. Help us keep our Madison Avenue as beautiful and in character.”
But some people did like the design; Barry Schneider, president of the East Sixties Neighborhood Association, told the Times it was "an architectural tour du force." The NY Sun reports on what the building's developer Aby Rosen thought:
"The Upper East Side needs new progressive architecture. Historically, the people who lived there were a driving creative force behind New York City. Unfortunately, now the Upper East Side has lost a little bit of its progressive luster to downtown."Uh, we think UES residents are happy to lose the progressive luster if they get to keep their views. The committee voted to reject the design, 6-to-3; the full board will vote on the matter next. After that, city groups will take part in deciding whether the tower is a go.





Bored, back-wards looking nimbys are useless.
The Whitney looks like a concrete mixer took a giant dump on the sidewalk.
homey- sorry, the only thing that's backwards is this shitty excuse for architecture and its cheerleaders at the Times
there are lots of 30-story towers in SpaHa (spanish harlem)... i used to live in one? perhaps this one is a little far south but personally i like it.
You really don't like east siders do you? I don't know where you got your stereotypes, but they are just that - innacurate and ill-informed.
fosters architecture like most starchitecture, is for tourists and architects.
does anyone have the modesty and intelligence to build a contextual building that is not identical (impossible) or a cut and paste job of cheap, fake ornament (likely).
it seems we have 2 extremes and cannot find a balance.
The phrase "new progressive architecture" is a code word for "uninspired post-modernist crap architecture designed by hacks" - the kinds of buildings that make Stalinist architecture look half decent. At least it isn't a Frank Ghery.
when a tourist or architect writes here we will have some upbeat opinions! watch!
Toby - amen.
Advisory roles are dangerous in that people think that they have a claim to every piece of sky and brick in their neighborhood. Often what it descends to is talk of "contextual" and then insulting a world class architect.
Contextual in New York is not rigidly defined like these bored people think. Until someone can show how this will realistically crush the community's soul, I take it for what it is: a fine design.
#7, toby, said it best
toby is a nimby.
No, Toby doesn't like ersatz garbage being pawned off as grand design. Calling this crap good or even inspired is like saying the Ford Pinto is the best example of automotive technology from the 1970s. Hell, a 1978 Chevrolet Chevette looks like it more thought applied its design than this.
toby is also responsible for his own pro-toby cheering section on posts #9 and #11.
toby would be so much more productive if he turned off his tv and stopped being a nimby.
Why is it handsome? Because it's shiny glass? Because it's rounded?
I understand that some like the "idea" of being "different" ("different" - I'd venture to say that 90% of the towers built today are glass). But saying that it's handsome, means it LOOKS good.
Why does anyone think this building looks good? It's boring. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It has no human scale and little visual interest.
"human scale" is another cry-baby way of complaining about height. It is a meaningless term in New York (the home of the skyscraper) and is about as forward looking as my GrandPa is.
#14, not really. I just agree with Toby's message.
More reason to put a waste-transfer station in UES, I say. Those assholes always get whatever they want. Let's compromise: They can have a new design, but they have to take the waste-transfer station...
Housekeeping for a Room23 yr female Exchange Student in need of housing---a room! Will trade housekeeping for room & board. Have excellent character references. Pl. reply with general location (cross streets in NYC) via email--serious offers only please indicate best time/contact # to reach you.
P.S Also with some With some culinary skills/ live-in live-out housekeeping
YATECJ@YAHOO.COM