Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Video: Close Encounters Above Central Park?
If you've ever wondered what the big deal is with fear-mongering over "big-box stores" and anonymous-looking architecture, The New York Sun directs your attention to Union Square. Once an aesthetically vibrant town point of commercial assembly, and it will probably always remain as such, the square is developing a severe style deficiency with all the warmth of a mall food court. James Gardner assesses the latest development around 14th Street:
The larger of the two, which is slightly less bad, is 8 Union Square South, which rises above what was once a four-story glass stair tower that Morris Lapidus designed for Crawford Clothes, a building whose survival was being debated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission even as the structure was undergoing demolition two years back.Gardner's summation is that the new architecture around Union Square is becoming cheap- and shoddy-looking and completely uninspired and singles out these offenders: Zeckendorf Towers, 1 Union Square West (where the Virgin Megastore and weird art is), two NYU buildings (University Hall and Palladium Hall) and 4 Union Square South, where the Filene's, DSW, and Whole Foods is. Gardner, though, forgets that 4 USS is perfect for dance performances, in all its uniform glory.8 Union Square South is an undistinguished box of a building that rises 13 stories, four of them in a setback, over the park. The structure seems uncertain whether to commit itself to the modernity of a dark curtain wall or to the historicist vernacular of a pale, limestone cladding. The result is a dreary non-description that is only slightly mitigated by a chamfered corner that orientates the base toward the park and adds some interest to one of the most important intersections in the city.
If one thinks that is equivalent with building for commercial use, we'll disagree by mentioning some much older buildings in Union Square. The former Bank of the Metropolis on Union Square West is still high-stylish with its Ionic columns. The Guardian Life Insurance Building on 17th St. makes mansard-roofed office buildings seem natural. Look at the southwest corner of 20th St. and Broadway––the original Lord & Taylor building is a landlocked commercial cruise ship in cast iron. All of these examples only make the box-storing of Union Square all the more appalling.
Photograph by with_l0ve on Flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Most new buildings, no matter where they are being built, range from plain-looking to downright ugly.
One of the main reasons is that it is way too expensive to build a quality structure anymore. You have to realize that when buildings like the Ansonia were built, the workers were basically slaves.
man. people will always find something to complain about, eh?
The Coffee Shop building is ugly.
If every building was built by a great master architect and had tremendous style, they would all stop being so special.
Like everything else in this world, you need the abundance of the mundane to appreciate the beauty of the unique.
Whatever its shortcomings, the Filene's/DSW building has the most spectacular view of Union Square.
This is Union Square, one of the most recognized public places in the US and the closest thing that New York has to a European style plaza. We should demand more from the developers, architects, and the city to ensure these places are, if not at least preserved, then cared for with thoughtful new developments. Save the big box stores and mediocre architecture for the sprawl where it belongs.
Post 1: It is often a misconception that because buildings have decoration they would be expensive to build. This is not the case, often clean simple lines are more difficult and costly to achieve then a brick building thats been covered with precast terracotta schlock.
I'm going to go ahead and take my access to a whole foods, a DSW and a filenes and weigh that against one man's point of view that its building is 'ugly' and go ahead and side with the first...
There were plenty of people that called the Chrysler Building ugly when that was new as well. Not that the USS buildings are exactly Chrysler buildings, but this is New York. We build, tear down and build again.
first of all, JGNY, you couldn't be more wrong.
But secondly, we are not really talking about just throwing up a stock terracotta facade, because after all, wouldn't that be just as bad if that was what the idea of 'great architecture' entailed.
Creating noble, memorable, buildings takes an incredible amount of skill, originality and artistic talent. It takes a great architect, and they are few, and expensive.
It all comes down to money and economy. These guys just want to put up what they can to make the most profit as fast as possible.
Kofi, I agree with you. Creating a disneyland of new york would be just as bad as building these cheap ass box stores.
I am not saying that every building in the city has to be built by the likes of Meier or Piano but lets put more emphasis and resources into our public spaces where they count, such as Union Square. I would not advocate the Landmarking of these types of spaces but perhaps the city can come up with some sort of new classification of space (call it "Designed Space" for lack of a better expression) and all new buildings in these districts (like USQ, Madison Square, Columbus Circle) will have to be built on designs from an architectural competition and reviewed by a commision of urban planners, designers, Tom Wolfe, etc...
Hooray for more red tape.
Remember, the metronome on the Virgin Records building was an attempt at design. From the New York times via barrypopik.com "'Metronome' was designed by Kristin Jones and Andrew Ginzel, chosen in a national competition organized by the Public Art Fund for the Related Companies, developers of the complex."
It's just not very good.
As far as public spaces in our city go, Union Square is hardly a problem. And remember, if no one shops at the big box store, it'll go away.
"And remember, if no one shops at the big box store, it'll go away."
NOT necessarily true. Often, in order to maintain a New York presence, "loss leaders" are erected and (even) celebrated. In those cases, at least, one would hope that some sort of artistic architectural integrity would be essential. Case in point: Rem Koolhaus' PRADA store... it's a spectacular experience and they surely ain't exploiting their space's footprint to maximize their yields of dollars per square foot.
Yeah, what happened to the good old days of Union Square, when you could buy a dime bag of smack or a bj from a transvestite hooker without an unsightly Whole Foods storefront in front of you?
face it, there simply is no concern for taste or quality in our current circumstance: let alone agreeing on what those terms even address.
i'd say the major style deficiency is in gardner's writing. this reads like the onion doing gothamist.
Much of the architecture problem lies in the cost of land and the cost of construction. Add in the inability to get other landowners to sell out so a good lot can be assembled. Plus the concept of air rights. Toss in the regulations that change with time. Frankly, I think it's a miracle if anything remotely palatable is constructed. If you were going to build something you would want to maximize the height and floor space too. If this city were height restricted like DC or Paris the rents would be 10 times higher and the sprawl of low rises would go from Times Square to Pittsburgh. Or more likely the city would not dominate business the way it does.
Much of the architecture problem lies in the cost of land and the cost of construction. Add in the inability to get other landowners to sell out so a good lot can be assembled. Plus the concept of air rights. Toss in the regulations that change with time. Frankly, I think it's a miracle if anything remotely palatable is constructed. If you were going to build something you would want to maximize the height and floor space too. If this city were height restricted like DC or Paris the rents would be 10 times higher and the sprawl of low rises would go from Times Square to Pittsburgh. Or more likely the city would not dominate business the way it does.
New York doesn't really dominate business anymore and rents are already well above what they should be. Developers are for the most part unwilling to endure higher design and material costs to create significant buildings. That and no one really cares to take note of them until too late. Half baked condos made of steel, glass, and shoddy dry wall are the new brownstones, I think maybe we just need to get used to it.
Carter: I think you are the only person commenting here that has actually lived in NYC for the past 25 years!
ive lived in union square my entire life (28 years) and the transformation it has undergone is remarkable and a vast improvement. When i was a child it was dangerous to even go in the park. Comercial stores have totally driven the development (Paragon, Barnes and Nobles, ABC carpets) of the area and should be applauded. The square is far more vibrant today than it has been in decades. Modernism is the price of progress. The mix of buildings old and new are one of new york's great features. Also the landmarked bulilding on 19th and broadway with fishs eddy is another beauty.