February 12, 2008
NYU's Silver Towers: Potential Landmark - or Eyesore?
Photograph by Jake Dobkin
Later today, the city will discuss whether the I.M. Pei-designed Silver Towers should be landmarked. The Observer reported that NYU announced its support today, a reversal from an earlier position over three years ago.
The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation pushed for landmarking the complex, located between Bleecker and Houston Streets and LaGuardia Place and Mercer Street, a few years ago, calling it "an innovative modern design by I.M. Pei." The GVSHP's support may have been to thwart further NYU expansion, as one 2004 rally for the Silver Towers' landmarking also included a protest for NYU's plans to building a "large new Science Center in the midst of the complex."
GVSHP still wants to designate the whole superblock (including the Morton Williams building); GVSHP's Andrew Berman said this superblock's design was "sensitive." However, Manhattan Institute fellow Julia Vitullo-Martin told amNew York, "Silver Towers destroyed the Manhattan street grid and did so deliberately. We probably should be rethinking landmarking if the city is going to landmark these kinds of developments. If you stood in front of Silver Towers and asked people walking by if it should be in the same category of Grand Central Station, I am sure they would say no."
NYU says it could still theoretically build more buildings in the open areas, even if the Silver Towers were landmarked.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission will discuss the Silver Towers around 1:45PM at the Municipal Building (1 Centre Street), 9th Floor. See the other things being discussed on the agenda (PDF). And back in 2004, City Councilman Alan Gerson told the Villager, "Where else do you have a combination of I.M. Pei and Pablo Picasso? It’s an exemplar of modern, high-rise urban building and planning, defining an era of architecture. It’s cries out for it. It’s a no-brainer." The Picasso in question is an interpretation of Picasso's Bust of Sylvette by Carl Nesjär. And here are some more pictures of Silver Towers.
|
They're ugly and an eyesore, however many things currently landmarked and treasured now were also considred eyesores in the past.
I really like them. I wouldn't want a city full of these, but they are a noble attempt at alternative housing schemes -- and they make you appreciate the traditional areas of the Village.
If replaced, the new will be even worse. The devil you kow is better than the one you don't.
i used to live down the block from these eyesores. while they were occasionally fun to photograph (as in the tilt-shift shot above), they were terrible for the neighborhood.
when NYU bulldozed those ten square blocks to make room for these towers (and the horrible ones just north), they destroyed hundreds of beautiful old NYC buildings that could have been rehabbed-- just like the buildings across broadway to the east and across houston to the south.
instead, they chose to put these towers up. just like jane jacobs predicted, superblocks like this suck all the life out of a neighborhood, and create a zone of despair about a block wide at their edges. the only reason it didn't kill the whole neighborhood is because houston street forms a protective barrier between it and soho, and the vitality of the surrounding village to the north, east, and west was too strong to be fully overcome.
but the best thing for the neighborhood and the city would be to see these towers pulled down and replaced by human-sized mixed use buildings-- four to six stories tall, incorporating local business, retail, NYU classrooms and services, and community centers.
however, there is lots of room in between those buildings, providing maximum opportunity for sunlight. You can bet that anything new built in its place will not leave as much open, empty space. Its just not what happens any more. Real estate is just too valuable to design in "unproductive" space.
Maybe you could have found a picture that actually shows what they look like before asking an opinion on their appearance. Not all of us went to NYU.
Do you realize that Pei means fart in Chinese? I.M. Pei, is that a big fat windy joke?
Crush these and the Javits building. But leave the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Nobody lives in Cleveland anyway.
Maybe you could have found a picture that actually shows what the buildings look like before asking an opinion on their appearance. Not all of us went to NYU.
@ kittyempire, here are two more links:
more pix
still more pix
gotta be honest: i like them.
they're worth keeping. they're the best of the bunch of those whole modern towers and actually look a lot better than most of the terrible condos going up now in most of the rest of the city.
but the whole superblock? um, no.
While it is sad that several square blocks of "urban blight" (from the 19th century) were torn down to build these, the deed was done a long long time ago. No use crying over the loss, it would never happen in today's world.
As for the landmarking... This is a rare example of "Towers in a park" that worked (perhaps it was having a Picasso in the 'yard'). I think they should be landmarked, not because they are a great example of architecture, but because they represent a time in which we thought we were doing the right thing. Not all that was built during that time was crap, and just as people thought old buildings from the victorian era were unimportant back then, I think these towers will be important to still have around fifty years from now and beyond.
While it is sad that several square blocks of "urban blight" (from the 19th century) were torn down to build these, the deed was done a long long time ago. No use crying over the loss, it would never happen in today's world.
As for the landmarking... This is a rare example of "Towers in a park" that worked (perhaps it was having a Picasso in the 'yard'). I think they should be landmarked, not because they are a great example of architecture, but because they represent a time in which we thought we were doing the right thing. Not all that was built during that time was crap, and just as people thought old buildings from the victorian era were unimportant back then, I think these towers will be important to still have around fifty years from now and beyond.
From the roof of my former residence on Thompson, they always appeared rather menacing, towering over the rest of the city. Then again, I only went up there to get stoned.
It's these, or some equally huge glass & steel monster designed by some nameless architect. I say landmark 'em, there aren't many modern buildings left in the city as is.
I'm ambivalent about them. It is certainly a architecturally cold spot in the middle of the otherwise warm and cozy Village. But they are part of the city's architectural history...plus, it is an interesting change of pace to be walking through the village and come across these massive structures and that windswept plaza. I kind of like the contrast they provide, it certainly makes you think about the misguided nature of modernist urban planning. Plus, like many modernist buildings, on their own, they are pretty attractive...they just don't fit into the neighborhood.
So I guess as I'm writing this, I'm coming to the conclusion that, sure, I like them...but I'm still not convinced they deserve landmark status...
"instead, they chose to put these towers up. just like jane jacobs predicted, superblocks like this suck all the life out of a neighborhood, and create a zone of despair about a block wide at their edges" - Welcome to Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn
"So I guess as I'm writing this, I'm coming to the conclusion that, sure, I like them...but I'm still not convinced they deserve landmark status..."
That's funny. I don't like them, but I kind of think they do deserve landmark status. When I lived on Mercer Street I always hated walking down that stretch of Bleecker. But I've used them literally as landmarks many, many times. How many times have you seen a rooftop shot of downtown NYC in a movie or TV show and not been sure where it was until those buildings came into view? Happened to me lots of times.
We stayed in Silver Towers for 3 wonderful months. The apts. are very large, bright, and with amazing views. The tower facing LaGuardia Place is a middle-income rental building, under Mitchell-Lama. I never thought of the buildings as ugly, but just that there should have been more outdoor space (for play, for sitting) for the residents, rather than that large expanse of paved plaza.
It's these, or some equally huge glass & steel monster designed by some nameless architect. I say landmark 'em, there aren't many modern buildings left in the city as is.
I've always admired them. They're not the best, but they're better than what they would probably be replaced with.
Death to brutalist architecture. These buildings are eyesores and their "parks" are a joke. So they have nice sunny apartments- inside. The rest of us on the outside have to do our best to ignore these things and their baneful effect on the neighborhood (what's left of it.
Even if the buildings that replace them suck, I.M. Pei and his execretions need to be obliterated as thoroughly as the 19th-century homes that he knocked down.
They're ugly pieces of shit. Tear them down.
I love the Silver Tower complex. The apartments are large, bright and truly beautiful. I love the plaza and all the green areas. It is also a very breezy spot on a hot summer day (very pleasant to sit and enjoy the outdoors).
In 1966 Mr. Pei's buildings won several awards and in 1983 the buildings were sited when Mr. Pei was awarded the Pritzker Prize for his architectural career to date.
I live in Silver Towers and I LOVED THEM! ! !