Gothamist: Union Square Boxes

sam

Sun, 27 May 2007 14:50:07 -0500

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.

petemac

Fri, 25 May 2007 02:11:45 -0500

Carter: I think you are the only person commenting here that has actually lived in NYC for the past 25 years!

chris

Fri, 25 May 2007 00:31:00 -0500

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.

it is what it is

Thu, 24 May 2007 21:38:13 -0500

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.

it is what it is

Thu, 24 May 2007 21:21:24 -0500

oracle monkey

Thu, 24 May 2007 19:52:59 -0500

i'd say the major style deficiency is in gardner's writing. this reads like the onion doing gothamist.

bqe

Thu, 24 May 2007 18:26:08 -0500

face it, there simply is no concern for taste or quality in our current circumstance: let alone agreeing on what those terms even address.

carter

Thu, 24 May 2007 17:38:17 -0500

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?

xnan

Thu, 24 May 2007 17:37:21 -0500

"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.

andomb

Thu, 24 May 2007 17:09:46 -0500

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.

JGNY

Thu, 24 May 2007 16:23:06 -0500

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...

kofi anon

Thu, 24 May 2007 16:10:52 -0500

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.

perryair

Thu, 24 May 2007 16:00:53 -0500

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.

JGNY

Thu, 24 May 2007 15:55:44 -0500

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.

msanthropic

Thu, 24 May 2007 15:45:32 -0500

Whatever its shortcomings, the Filene's/DSW building has the most spectacular view of Union Square.

adam

Thu, 24 May 2007 15:37:09 -0500

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.

smitty

Thu, 24 May 2007 15:34:49 -0500

The Coffee Shop building is ugly.

nick

Thu, 24 May 2007 15:27:56 -0500

man. people will always find something to complain about, eh?

kofi anon

Thu, 24 May 2007 15:24:34 -0500

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.